Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — SOCIAL SECURITY

Family Circumstances (Research)

Mr. Barnes: asked the Minister of Social Security if she will set up a continuing research programme in order to maintain up-to-date information on family circumstances.

The Minister of Social Security (Mrs. Judith Hart): I am at present considering with my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity, how far it may be possible to use the continuous family expenditure survey for this purpose.

Mr. Barnes: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that it would be relatively cheap to keep the information obtained about the circumstances of families up to date by doing a limited amount of research each year? If that is not done, there will be a serious lack of information, and when a major survey has to be done again, it will cost that much more.

Mrs. Hart: I considered that possibility, but I think that it will be best to try to get the basic continuous data that we need from the family expenditure survey, the sample for which has been very much enlarged since last year. A good deal of data is available which we are proposing to analyse, and then I shall consider how far, perhaps with the addition of one or two questions, we might be able to keep up to date on the kind of information which the family circumstances survey gave.

Poverty (Survey)

Mr. Kenneth Baker: asked the Minister of Social Security what approaches she has had from Professors Titmuss,

Abel Smith and Townsend for Government financial support for their projected majority survey into poverty in the United Kingdom.

Mrs. Hart: None, Sir. I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, West (Mr. Judd) on 11th April. I would add that Professor Titmuss has not been involved in the Abel Smith-Townsend survey.—[Vol. 762, c. 333–4.]

Mr. Baker: Does the right hon. Lady agree that several approaches have been made to her Ministry over the last three years for support for a survey into property? What are the real reasons for the Government not supporting such a survey which is the starting point of all social reforms? Why do the Government not want such a survey? Is the right hon. Lady worried about the possible results of it?

Mrs. Hart: If the hon. Gentleman is referring to the totally inaccurate and misleading article in The Guardian which may have put the last thought into his mind, perhaps I can assure him that that is not the case. I have not—and this is what I made clear to my hon. Friend in April—had any request for assistance from the organisers of this survey. My predecessor was asked last year whether she would give certain help with it, but mainly on interviewing, not so much on money. Some limited help was given at that stage, but the present survey, which Professors Abel Smith and Townsend have proposed, is a matter for the Social Science Research Council which comes to its own view, and I cannot comment on what is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We have a number of Questions.

Benefit Payments (Post Office Giro)

Sir B. Rhys Williams: asked the Minister of Social Security what objection she has to the use of the Post Office giro for the payment of social benefits.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Social Security (Mr. Norman Pentland): Some 45 million short-term benefit payments a year now made by postal draft will be made by


giro payment order. For long-term benefits, on the other hand, the cheapest and the most suitable way so far continues to be the order book system.

Sir B. Rhys Williams: Does the right hon. Lady agree with the Minister of Technology in his weekend speech, and with many other people, including myself, that
the day will come not long hence when the taxation and social security systems will be capable of complete integration.

Mr. Speaker: Order. No quotations in supplementary questions.

Mr. Pentland: I cannot answer for my right hon. Friend's weekend speech, in whatever form it was made. We in the Ministry are anxious that pensions should be paid in the most efficient and economical way and we shall keep a close watch on the functioning of giro to see how best we can use it.

Social Security (Review)

Mr. Judd: asked the Minister of Social Security when she now expects to complete her comprehensive review of social security.

Mrs. Hart: The White Paper setting out the Government's proposals for an earnings-related pensions scheme will, I hope, be published by the end of the year.

Mr. Judd: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that at a time when the Government are committed to relating incomes to economic growth it is more urgent than ever to get a comprehensive review which will enable pensions and other social benefits to be related to economic growth?

Mrs. Hart: That is the case. I am looking forward, as I hope my hon. Friend is, to the comprehensive nature of the new scheme which we propose to set out in the White Paper. It is an elaborate piece of work. It inevitably takes a good deal of time to prepare, but I hope that the results will be felt to justify this.

Mr. Ridsdale: Will the right hon. Lady work on the principle that help should go 10 those who need it most?

Mrs. Hart: In the social insurance system, which is what the White Paper

will concern itself with, we are concerned with benefits which are a right as a consequence of contributions which have been paid.

Immigrants

Mr. Barnes: asked the Minister of Social Security if she will clarify the circumstances in which it is Government policy to repatriate immigrants who want to return home.

Mr. Winnick: asked the Minister of Social Security if she will state the existing Government policy to assist those immigrants who want to return home.

Mr. Hornby: asked the Minister of Social Security what steps she has taken to publicise the repatriation of immigrants scheme generally, and in particular among those who could take advantage of it.

Mrs. Hart: The Supplementary Benefits Commission pay the fare for an immigrant to return to his country of origin when the following conditions all apply: first, that he himself genuinely wishes to return there; second, that it will be in his own interests because he has no prospect of settling down in this country successfully; third, that he cannot himself pay his fare; and fourth, that public money is likely to be saved by helping him to return. These arrangements have, I think, become well known to the public.

Mr. Barnes: Would the right hon. Lady not agree that it is still not clear from what the Home Secretary said on television and what the Prime Minister said in answer to a Question last week by the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) whether the Government are considering extending this assistance to any immigrant who wants to go home but cannot pay the fare? Would she not agree that even to discuss repatriation in this way in the present climate would be very wrong?

Mrs. Hart: Yes, I would agree. The present scheme has been working since 1935. It has covered a very small number of cases because of the conditions which have to be satisfied and there are no proposals at the moment for extending the scheme.

Mr. Winnick: Would my right hon. Friend agree, first and foremost, that the vast majority of immigrants here want to stay here and have no intention of returning to their land of origin, and that if we are not careful there could be a danger that certain people would try to coerce or bully immigrants to get them home? Would she agree that, in no circumstances, must people be subject to any form of coercion?

Mrs. Hart: No form of coercion would be possible because of the conditions which have to be met before the fare can be paid. It has to be clear that the immigrant has no chance of settling down successfully here, that he wants to return to his country of origin, and that public money would, in the long run, be saved. These conditions, I think, successfully preclude any possibility of coercion.

Mr. Worsley: Is the right hon. Lady aware that the Home Secretary's remarks on television gave the impression— wrongly, I think—that there had been a change of policy here? Second, is she aware that very few immigrants have been helped by this scheme? Would she ensure that those who genuinely want to return home are made aware of it?

Mrs. Hart: On the last point, there has been a good deal of publicity given in the last three weeks. This is why I think that no further publicity is required. I do not agree that my right hon. Friend gave any false impression. He said that this scheme had been in operation for many years, and it has been made quite clear that the numbers who have been assisted are very limited. I gave the full figures in a speech quoted in the Press about two or three weeks ago.

Mr. Dudley Smith: Does the right hon. Lady not feel that, with better publicity, there might be greater acceptance of this scheme by those who need to be helped? Would she bear in mind that there are often language difficulties and that, if this could be explained in the languages of the immigrants concerned, this would also help?

Mrs. Hart: What has to be remembered—I know that I am not answering the question directly, but I think I am answering the point behind it—is that immigrants coming in on either A or B

vouchers have a high degree of skill or professional training, or have jobs ready for them. It is wrong to suppose, therefore, that immigrants are a burden to the community in the sense that they fail to find work. It is in the odd case, where there is perhaps some genuine social maladjustment or illness, that it is necessary for us to assist them with their fares to return to their countries of origin, if that is what they want to do.

Sir Richard Glyn: asked the Minister of Social Security how many immigrants are claiming benefit for dependants resident outside Great Britain; how many dependants are involved; what annual sum is sent out of Great Britain for this purpose; and how she satisfies herself as to the existence of these dependants.

Mrs. Hart: An immigrant to this country can qualify for benefit for dependants abroad only in limited circumstances. In practice, the hon. Gentleman's Question relates almost entirely to dependants living in Western European countries, Australia, New Zealand, Malta, Cyprus and Turkey, with which we have relevant reciprocal agreements. I regret that the figures and costs asked for are not available.

Sir Richard Glyn: Would the right hon. Lady agree that a substantial number of immigrants are claiming relief for alleged dependants who are said to be resident in areas where it is practically impossible for their existence to be checked? Would she consider whether or not these unprovable claims should be met in future?

Mrs. Hart: For an application of this kind from a country which is not covered by a reciprocal agreement the conditions are, I assure the hon. Gentleman, extremely tightly drawn. Any case of doubt goes to an independent statutory authority and is carefully judged on a stringent basis.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: Even though, technically, my right hon. Friend's Answer might be satisfactory, is she aware that it does not answer the malicious propaganda, which certain hon. Members are using, directed against immigrants? Would she agree that it would be worth while to get the statistical


information, since this would disprove the allegations that are being made?

Mrs. Hart: I have set that in hand. What I have said in reply to the hon. Member for Dorset, North (Sir Richard Glyn) and other hon. Gentlemen opposite points out exactly how far the scheme has been restricted to people from countries which are not, I believe, normally in the minds of hon. Gentlemen opposite in this connection.

Departmental Forms

Mr. Costain: asked the Minister of Social Security how many forms are in use by her Department; how many people are engaged in compiling and distributing them; and how this compares with the previous three years.

Mr. Pentland: About 3,500 forms of different kinds are issued by my Department, and some 40 staff are occupied in their compilation and distribution. Enlarged responsibilities over the past three years have led to the need for more forms but the number of staff used on the associated work has not increased.

Mr. Costain: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that I asked specifically how many more forms? Does he realise that the nation is getting fed up with filling in forms? Can he not reduce the number?

Mr. Pentland: The hon. Gentleman has not received the reply which he expected. I said that the number of staff used on the associated work for these forms has not increased.

Mr. Rose: What proportion of the increase in forms is due to the fact that people are now entitled to supplementary benefits, to which they were not entitled under the previous Government?

Mr. Pentland: A considerable proportion.

Widows (National Insurance Contributions)

Captain W. Elliot: asked the Minister of Social Security what plans she now has for abolishing National Insurance contributions by widows; and if she will make a statement.

Mr. Pentland: The great majority of widows under pension age receive widow's or other benefits and are excepted from

the obligation to pay contributions; the contributions paid by the remainder, who are for the most part in work, maintain their insurance rights under the scheme. I would remind the hon. and gallant Member that this Government have already made substantial improvements in the provision for widows, but my right hon. Friend cannot forecast what further measures may be proposed.

Capt. Elliot: Can I take that answer to mean that further measures are contemplated? Will the Minister also consider the position of widows whose husbands die when the widows are within three or four weeks, or even three or four days, of their fiftieth birthday?

Mr. Pentland: Yes, Sir, we are studying these matters very carefully. The hon. Gentleman is concerned about the 50 age limit, and we are giving full consideration to this.

Tests of Means

Sir B. Rhys Williams: asked the Minister of Social Security what is the number of individual tests of means she estimates will be carried out by her Department during the financial year 1968–69, and the total administrative cost involved.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Social Security (Mr. Charles Loughlin): It is estimated that about 6¼ million claims for benefits subject to a test of means will be received, in 1968–69, including second and subsequent claims in that year; and that the immediate administrative cost to my Department of dealing with them will be of the order of £5½ million.

Sir B. Rhys Williams: Would the hon. Gentleman not agree that it is a very serious criticism of the National Insurance system that more than 2½ million people are now obliged to apply for supplementary benefits on top of their National Insurance?

Mr. Loughlin: Rather than this being undesirable, I would have thought that the fact that we have put in additional benefits at supplementary benefit level is very desirable, compared with what applied when we came into power.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Why is the means test now called the test of means?

Mr. Louehlin: Test of needs.

Family Allowances

Mr. Hooley: asked the Minister of Social Security what effective net benefit does a family wholly dependent on social security benefit derive from the increase in family allowances; and how this compares with the benefit accruing from the allowance to a taxpayer on an income of £1,500 per annum with three dependent children of school age.

Mrs. Hart: The taxpayer with three children and an income of £1,500 a year derives virtually no benefit from the April and October family allowances increases because he was already paying tax at the standard rate before the change. Families on supplementary benefit have been helped if they are subject to the wage-stop. The increase in family allowances in April and October are specifically intended to help the family of the low wage earner in work. National Insurance benefits and supplementary benefits were increased last autumn, and supplementary benefits are to go up again this autumn.

Mr. Hooley: But is it not a fact that families wholly dependent on social security benefits derive no benefit from the increases in family allowances? How is it defensible to increase family allowances for people who are working and have an adequate income, even if it is not £1,500, and give nothing to those on social security benefits?

Mrs. Hart: My hon. Friend will know that we discussed this fully last Thursday. If the kind of family which he mentions, which of course needs our help, has three children, it has been having 14s. a week more since last October. We were seeking then specifically to help the low income family the father of whom is in work and therefore cannot benefit from any social security benefit other than family allowances, and who often has an income, on which to support his family, lower than that guaranteed by supplementary benefits.

Mr. Pardoe: Is the right hon. Lady aware that, from figures given by the Parliamentary Secretary in a Written Answer on 24th May to my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock), it would appear that the man on £1,500 a year and above will lose

more the more children he has? Is this the Government's intention?

Mrs. Hart: I would need to see to what proposal the hon. Gentleman refers, but I doubt whether he has made the right interpretation. The tax adjustments which have been made are such that the full value of the increase in family allowances is not kept by people above a certain level of income and at a certain level only part of the value of the increase is kept. It means nothing more than that.

Mr. Winnick: May I plead with my right hon. Friend to look again at the position of widowed mothers and separated mothers who are drawing supplementary assistance and who, as a result of the family allowance increases, are not receiving one penny more? Is there not a special case for allowing these people to receive more money by not having their supplementary benefits reduced?

Mrs. Hart: My hon. Friend will readily understand that in our somewhat complex social security system it is not possible to help every group at the same time. That trouble has caused some unhappy feelings. The kind of person to whom my hon. Friend is referring got an increase last October. This time we undertook a different exercise and it was specifically designed for a different group of people. In circumstances such as this, we cannot assist everybody simultaneously.

Mr. Worsley: With respect to the right hon. Lady, is she aware that she appeared on Thursday not fully to understand the workings of her own selective scheme? Would she now make it clear —she did not on Thursday and her Answer has not, either—whether or not she is taking into account earned income relief?

Mrs. Hart: I gave the hon. Gentleman a very full statement about this last Thursday and I do not intend to repeat it now. I am sorry if my accusations of his misunderstanding have provoked him today.

Prescription Charges

Dr. John Dunwoody: asked the Minister of Social Security what was the average administrative cost of refunding


a single prescription charge when they were last in force; and what is the estimated cost when the charge is reintroduced.

Mrs. Hart: The average cost per refund under the pre-1965 arrangements was about 6d. The new arrangements for exemption will reduce considerably the total number—and consequently the total administrative cost—of refunds that will be necessary. It is not practicable to give a precise estimate in advance of the cost per refund.

Dr. Dunwoody: Nevertheless, does not my right hon. Friend agree that the total cost of the refunds and exemptions that will be necessary under the scheme being introduced will considerably lessen the revenue from the reintroduction of prescription charges and cast in doubt the whole economic justification for the scheme?

Mrs. Hart: I very much doubt, having successfully arranged exemptions for numbers of people who pre-1965 were covered by refunds, if this will add to the cost. It will, in fact, produce a considerable staff saving for my Ministry as against having to deal separately with each refund. This is, therefore, a move which is doubly desirable; first, in terms of staff time and, secondly, to secure a better system for the people concerned.

Pensionable Workers (Contributions and Benefits)

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Minister of Social Security whether she will reconsider the arrangement whereby persons in work over retirement age pay earnings-related insurance contributions, but do not receive earnings-related sickness or unemployment benefit when sick or unemployed.

Mr. Pentland: No, Sir. There remain strong reasons against paying sickness and unemployment above the retirement pension rate to those who are over minimum pension age.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Is the hon. Gentleman aware—since the Department admitted to a constituent of mine who raised this matter that it was an injustice—that justice should rate higher than administrative convenience?

Mr. Pentland: We discussed this very thoroughly during the Committee stage of the Measure. We have never claimed this to be a permanent scheme; and the whole matter is, of course, being examined in planning the new long-term provisions.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Minister of Social Security whether the additional contributions paid after retirement age by those still in work represent actuarily the increment in pension received after retirement, bearing in mind the pension forgone in the interim period.

Mr. Pentland: No, Sir. Increments provide only partial compensation for pension forgone and additional contributions paid, but they are complementary to the retirement condition and are not solely an actuarial matter.

Earnings Rule

Mr. Astor: asked the Minister of Social Security if she will take steps to relax the earnings rule in respect of married women whose husbands are disabled and in receipt of National Insurance benefit owing to their incapacity to work.

Mr. Loughlin: My right hon. Friend shares the hon. Gentleman's concern about the position of these families. This is one aspect of the wider question of the provision to be made for dependency benefits in National Insurance, which she is at present studying.

Mr. Astor: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that it is often desirable, if not essential, in this type of family for the wife of a disabled husband to augment the family income? Would he therefore consider either raising the limit of £2 16s., which the husband's benefit curtails, or have a graduated scale so that if the wife earns more than £2 16s. the family retains some of the benefit.

Mr. Loughlin: I agree that that would help some families in these circumstances. However, I am not so sure that it would be right to give additional assistance— for that is what we would be giving— to such families where the wife is able to go out to work. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] It would mean that wives who, for various reasons, are not able to go out to work, would not get any


advantage at all. We want to deal with the subject so that equitable assistance is given.

Mr. Molloy: When will my hon. Friend or my right hon. Friend be in a position to make a statement about the plight of mothers and housewives who are themselves disabled and who for this reason cannot go out to work? When will a statement be made about some consideration being given to a type of pension for these people, perhaps along the lines outlined in the evidence sent to him by the Disabled Incomes Group?

Mr. Loughlin: My hon. Friend can rest assured that we are very concerned about the chronic sick and, in particular, about disabled housewives. We will have the information upon the completion of the study as quickly as possible and give the House the fullest information at the earliest possible moment.

Mr. Ridsdale: For how long has the Minister been studying this matter? How much would it cost to implement this proposal? Is he aware that this matter has been under consideration for some time and that I received an Answer about two months ago saying that the Minister was studying it?

Mr. Loughlin: We cannot give an estimate or cost the proposal until we know precisely what we are going to do. We have been studying this for two years. It is not a new problem and if half the studies conducted by previous Conservative Administrations had gone into this matter, we might now have been in a position to solve the problem.

Supplementary Benefits

Mr. Marks: asked the Minister of Social Security if she will include the cost of window cleaning as an allowance when her officers are assessing supplementary benefits for infirm people.

Mr. Loughlin: The basic supplementary benefit rates are intended to cover, among other things, small household expenses such as the cost of window cleaning.

Mr. Marks: Is my hon. Friend aware that in certain cases people are capable of carrying out their normal household duties but are not, particularly in old

houses with high windows and modern flats, able to clean their windows and that this means additional expense? Will he ask his officers to use their discretion in these cases?

Mr. Loughlin: I appreciate the difficulty caused by certain types of window, and perhaps the same difficulty arises with windows which open outwards. In the last review of the Supplementary Benefits Commission an attempt was made to get away from the constant examination of minor types of expenditure, some of them of less than 1s. a week. That was the reason why the position was recast; and the supplementary benefits rates take into account these additional small items.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC BUILDING AND WORKS

Cement (Surcharge)

Mr. Hooley: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what is the estimated gross product of the 2s. surcharge on cement in a full year; and what is his estimate of the aggregate gross profits of the cement companies in the most recent complete financial year, in the light of the prices and incomes policy.

The Minister of Public Building and Works (Mr. Robert Mellish): The 2s. surcharge on cement prices in respect of oil-fuel costs were applied on 16th August, 1967. During the nine full months since then deliveries of Portland and Rapid Hardening Cement have been 12·7 million tons, and the surcharge has amounted to about £1·3 million. It is estimated that in the first full year it will amount to about £1·7 million. My Department collects no figures of profits. The prices and incomes policy applying to cement prices is based on the report of the N.B.P.I.

Mr. Hooley: In view of the very high yield of this surcharge and the fact that the cost of cement is an important element in the cost of a great many other things, will my right hon. Friend keep this matter under very stringent review?

Mr. Mellish: I give an undertaking to do that. I hope very much that the moment the reason for the surcharge is over we shall get a reduction.

New Embassies

Mr. Gresham Cooke: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works (1) in view of the fact that the new British Embassy in Rome is to cost approximately £1 million, what steps will be taken to ensure that the maximum use is made therein of British timber, ceramics, sanitary fittings, kitchen equipment, furniture and furnishings with a view to obtaining some indirect benefit for British industry from their display in Rome;
(2) to what extent it is his policy to ensure that all new British embassies constructed overseas are designed and furnished and decorated in such a way as to ensure the maximum publicity for British materials; and what instructions are given by him to building contractors concerned with such edifices.

Mr. Mellish: It is my policy to give the maximum opportunity for the supply of British materials and equipment to British Embassies provided they are competitive in design, price, delivery and maintenance. Designers and contractors are made aware of this policy and every encouragement is given to British suppliers to take advantage of it.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: With regard to the embassy in Rome, will the Minister give instructions to Sir Basil Spence to see that it is not only an advertisement for British design but also for British craftsmanship and is not filled with Italian marble and all the rest?

Mr. Mellish: The cost is £850,000, not £1 million. We had better get that right. We shall ensure that all the furniture and furnishings and as much equipment as possible will be of British origin, and Sir Basil Spence has been told that.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that although the kitchen equipment in the embassy in Rome will be British the food which is served will not be?

Construction Industry

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what progress he has made in his discussions with

the Royal Aircraft Establishment, Farnborough, on techniques relevant to the construction industry.

Mr. Mellish: My right hon. Friend the Minister of Technology and I have agreed that any facilities at the Royal Aircraft Establishment which are suitable and available will be used to help the construction industry. Ways of extending the close co-operation which already exists between the Royal Aircraft Establishment and the Building Research Station are being examined.

Mr. Dalyell: My right hon. Friend has personally taken a great deal of trouble in this matter, for which I thank him. Will he say whether any results are expected in the matter of condensation in new housing, which is a great problem that perhaps could be solved at Farnborough?

Mr. Mellish: I cannot give an answer to that, but in reply to the representations which have been made to me personally I have taken this matter up with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government. My hon. Friend is quite right in suggesting that research facilities which are available should be made available to the Government as a whole and not only to a particular Department.

Aldabra

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what was the total expenditure by his Department for any convenient period during 1967–68 at Aldabra Atoll, in the Indian Ocean.

Mr. Mellish: Expenditure at Aldabra was negligibile, but the total cost to my Ministry of the 1967 survey and of planning in connection with the project was about £10,000.

Mr. Dalyell: From his experience, have my right hon. Friend and the Department learned anything about the difficulties of forward estimating techniques, and what conclusions have been drawn?

Mr. Mellish: One thing we have learned is not to try to build bases in places like Aldabra.

Oral Answers to Questions — AVIATION

Aerospace Projects and Exports

Mr. Robert Howarth: asked the Minister of Technology what are the annual totals of financial support which he has given to civil aerospace projects from and including 1964 to that estimated for 1968.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Technology (Mr. John Stonehouse): The figures for the four financial years from 1964–65 were £29 million, £34 million, £52 million and £67 million respectively. The estimate for 1968–69 is £85 million.

Mr. Howarth: I thank my hon. Friend for that most encouraging reply, which I think indicates the measure of support the industry is receiving from this Government. Can my hon. Friend say whether the figure for 1968 includes an amount for the European airbus?

Mr. Stonehouse: No, the figure for the European airbus is not in this particular amount.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Bearing in mind the recent decision over E.L.D.O., when the present programme comes to an end, is it proposed to ensure that the maximum value is obtained from the money already spent by carrying on a space programme for this country thereafter?

Mr. Stonehouse: Space is another subject and I must ask that a separate Question be put down on that.

Mr. Howarth: asked the Minister of Technology if he will state the totals of British aerospace exports since and including 1964 and his estimate of the likely level of exports in 1968.

Mr. Stonehouse: In the years from 1964 to 1967 the exports of the British aircraft industry were £104 million, £150 million, £229 million and £207 million respectively. Present indications are that exports in 1968 may exceed £250 million.

Mr. Howarth: Will my hon. Friend continue with the outstanding efforts he has made in supporting the industry and also, I trust, point out to those who were critical of the earlier efforts of the Government that the Government's policy is

now paying very handsome dividends for the nation?

Mr. Stonehouse: I thank my hon. Friend for that supplementary question. It is absolutely true that during the last four years we have been able to reduce the emphasis on defence building and put the emphasis on building for export. This is shown up in the figures I have given this afternoon.

Mr. Corfield: But is it not abundantly clear that a great deal of this is attributable to the initiative of the companies themselves and that most of these export figures arise from matters long before 1964?

Mr. Stonehouse: If the hon. Gentleman would consult his friends in industry, I am sure he will have ample information from them that they give great credit to the partnership with the Government in the last four years. Many of the exports would not have been achieved unless this partnership had been established.

Oral Answers to Questions — LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

Seebohm Committee

Mr. Moonman: asked the Lord President of the Council when he expects to co-ordinate Her Majesty's Government's consideration of the findings of the Seebohm Committee.

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Richard Crossman): My colleagues and I will be considering the Report as soon as we have been able to see and digest its recommendations.

Mr. Moonman: When the Report is published, will the Lord President of the Council consider establishing in each local authority area facilities for consultation with the field workers in the social services? Does he also agree that it might be useful to establish joint bodies which would look at position and reorganisation at every possible stage so that there is no frustration in the social services?

Mr. Crossman: I am not prepared to exclude any possibilities. We shall certainly consider everything at national level and consider possibilities at local level as well.

Mr. Worsley: Will the Lord President of the Council approach his right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to ensure that soon after the publication of the Report there will be a full debate on the subject in view of its extreme importance?

Mr. Crossman: It is not wise to anticipate what happens. I would not expect the Report until July. We shall have to see how things go after that.

Ministries of Health and Social Security (Merger)

Mr. Worsley: asked the Lord President of the Council what structural changes he intends to propose in the Ministries of Health and Social Security or other Ministries, in the light of his duties relating to social policy; and what savings he expects to make as result.

Mr. Crossman: No date has yet been fixed for the merger of the two Departments and, after the merger itself has been accomplished, the final structure may well take some time to fashion. It will need to reflect the Government's developing social policies and to be attuned to any decisions taken in the light of the Seebohm Report, the Report of the Royal Commission on Local Government and the review which the Minister of Health has initiated of the administrative structure of the Health Services.

Mr. Worsley: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that from that reply it sounds as if this merger will never take place? Will he indicate the rough time scale of what he has in mind?

Mr. Crossman: I do not think there is any reason to think that the merger will not take place. It will take place in the near future. What I said is that there are two stages, the merger itself and the final structure later. I would regard the merger as something relatively simple to do and it will not take too long. What I warned the hon. Member of was that after the merger the second stage almost certainly will require legislation.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: Bearing in mind the speech of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Technology and the reference to participating democracy, does my right hon. Friend agree that there might be some value in producing a green paper so

that we could participate in this most important matter?

Mr. Crossman: I do not know whether my hon. Friend was referring to the Seebohm Committee or to the merger. With regard to the merger, I would not think a green paper necessary.

Dr. Dunwoody: Would my right hon. Friend agree that this merger will be widely welcomed by workers in this field and will provide considerable opportunities for progress? Will my right hon. Friend try to break down some of the divisions which exist in the Health Service between hospitals, general practitioners and local authority services?

Mr. Crossman: Everybody in the Service will agree that there is much to be done, but we should not commit ourselves. We have this long list of reports to study. They will take some time to digest. I have no doubt that we all want to see a break-down of these artificial divisions. Agreement on the next stage will be a great deal more difficult to achieve.

Mr. Gwynfor Evans: When will the promise made in 1964 to transfer the responsibilities of the Ministry of Health to the Welsh Office be fulfilled?

Mr. Crossman: That seems to be a slightly different question. I would like to reflect on it before giving a considered answer.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT AND PRODUCTIVITY

Northern Region

Mr. R. W. Elliott: asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity if she is aware that there has been a fall of 9,000 in the number of persons employed in manufacturing industries in the Northern Region in the year ended June, 1967; and what steps she will take to find employment for these people.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity (Mr. E. Fernyhough): I am aware of the estimated reduction in manufacturing industries in the Northern Region during the period June, 1966, to June, 1967. This reduction was a percentage decrease


of 1·9 and compares with a percentage decrease of 3·1 in persons employed in manufacturing industries in Great Britain as a whole, for the same period. My local offices are doing all they can to provide alternative work for those made unemployed, including offers of training facilities where appropriate.

Mr. Elliott: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point on comparative percentage falls, but does he appreciate how very serious this fall is, particularly as the latest D.E.A. figure on the jobs needed to replace those lost in contracting basic industries is 17,000 annually?

Mr. Femyhough: Yes, I very much appreciate this need. During the last six months several major firms have announced that they are going to the North-East. We shall continue to encourage firms which will provide alternative employment and bed themselves down there to do so.

Mr. Leadbitter: Does my hon. Friend appreciate that these comparative percentage figures do not truly reflect the deep concern felt in the area? There are two points which he might examine. First, will he consider that the Tees-side and Hartlepools area cannot afford any more unemployment? I refer to the Furness shipyard. Secondly, will my hon. Friend report to the Secretary of State the urgent need to review once again the effect of S.E.T. and the Regional Employment Premium on the Northern Region?

Mr. Fernyhough: As last Thursday I met all the local employment committees covering the Northern Region, I can assure my hon. Friend that I am fully aware of the problem throughout the region. During the last two months announcements in relation to Tees-side— Monsanto, I.C.I., and various other firms—provide some hope that there will be increased employment in the area. I wish that my hon. Friend would address his questions on S.E.T. to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor.

Sir J. Rodgers: The S.E.T. was surely introduced to shift people from commerce to manufacturing. As it has completely failed in this objective, will not the hon. Gentleman make representations to the Chancellor to have this tax abolished everywhere?

Mr. Fernyhough: The right hon. Gentleman knows that the Chancellor has asked Mr. Reddaway to look at the effects of S.E.T. We shall have to await his report.

Mr. Conlan: Does my hon. Friend appreciate the extent of the serious concern we all share at the continuing high level of unemployment in the Northern Region? Will he undertake to make representations to the President of the Board of Trade to ensure that the grant for machinery and plant is not reduced at the end of this year from 45 per cent. to 40 per cent., because this will surely reduce the employment opportunities in the region?

Mr. Fernyhough: My hon. Friend is only repeating what other hon. Members have said. Nobody could be more aware than I, because I represent Jarrow, of the need for more employment. I will certainly bring my hon. Friend's comment about investment grants to the attention of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.

Mr. R. W. Elliott: asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity if she is aware of the substantial fall in the number of persons employed in service industries in the Northern Region in the past year; and what investigation she has made to discover the causes of this fall.

Mr. Fernyhough: I am aware that the estimated number of employees in service industries in the Northern Region in June, 1967, was 4,700 less than in June, 1966, a difference of 0·8 per cent. No special investigation has been made. Decreases in some service industries were in part offset by increases in others.

Mr. Elliott: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that since June, 1967, there has been a continuing and ever-increasingly rapid fall in the number of people employed in service industries in the region? Is he aware that the region's great need is diversification of industry? Will he take fully into account the highly detrimental effect of Selective Employment Tax on development areas?

Mr. Fernyhough: I am aware that the July, 1966, measures had a serious effect upon service industries in the North, as


they did throughout the country. I will certainly ensure that the attention of my right hon. Friend is drawn to that fact. We intend to relieve certain hotels in rural parts of development areas from the payment of S.E.T.

Mr. Tinn: Will my hon. Friend make strong representations to the Treasury for a favourable decision to the North-East on the siting of the P.A.Y.E. computer centre at an early date. This is urgently needed by the North-East.

Mr. Fernyhough: I am as interested in where that centre should be sited as is my hon. Friend.

Mr. John Page: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that he appears to be rather complacent in that he has given no reason for the decline in employment in service industries in the Northern Region and has said that he is not finding out anything about it? Will he ensure that the Secretary of State, who is not here this afternoon, is fully informed of the strong feelings which have been expressed from both sides of the House?

Mr. Fernyhough: I am not complacent. I have already said that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has asked Mr. Reddaway to conduct an inquiry into the working of S.E.T. Mr. Reddaway will ascertain what its effects are, not only nationally, but in the Northern Region and in other development areas in particular.

24-Hour Shift Systems

Mr. John Lee: ask the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity if she will institute an inquiring into the feasibility of 24-hour shift systems.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity (Mr. Harold Walker): At the request of the National Joint Advisory Council, industrial rela-lations officers of my Department under took a series of studies of shift working which were published at the end of 1967. Several independent studies have also been carried out, and others are still in train. My right hon. Friend is not proposing to initiate a further general inquiry.

Mr. Lee: I thank my hon. Friend for that full and helpful reply. Some of us

regard 24-hour shift systems as most important in an area of high capital intensive industry. If my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is not prepared to institute a full inquiry, may I ask that the utmost consideration be given to this matter?

Mr. Walker: We shall certainly encourage the further spread of shift working where it shows itself to be advantageous.

Mr. Lubbock: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that 24-hour shift working does not operate at all in the Palace of Westminster, where hon. Members have to work all three shifts?

Mr. Walker: That is not a matter for me.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Is my hon. Friend aware that if some of these efficiency experts had to do a bit of night shift and shift work themselves, as some of us have, they would not be so damned enthusiastic about it?

Mr. Walker: I agree with my hon. Friend, speaking as one who has had a lot of experience of working night shifts in a factory. Studies have been carried out by the Medical Research Council's Industrial Psychology Unit into the social aspects of nightshift work. We await the publication of the report of these studies with interest.

Mr. Gresham-Cooke: Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that in coal-mining and in the steel industry three-shift working has been normal practice for a very long time—for 50 or 100 years—that there is a great deal of plant in British industry which is working only one-third of the day and not working at all on Saturdays and Sundays, and that we are losing out as compared with other countries which are now adopting two-shift and three-shift systems?

Mr. Walker: The economic advantages of shift work are not so clear-cut as the hon. Gentleman suggests. They tend to be offset by such factors as night-shift premiums. It might interest the hon. Gentleman to know that a detailed 10-year survey into shift-working was conducted by Robin Harris and financed by my Ministry for the period 1954 to 1964. The conclusion was that there was no evidence to prove that shift-working was in all cases advantageous or profitable.

Mr. Heffer: Is my hon. Friend aware that, where it does operate, night-shift working creates a great deal of unhappi-ness, unpleasantness and difficulty for the people involved, and that, while it may be true that there is a greater use of plant and machinery, people's happiness and health come before that? Further does my hon. Friend know of any lawyers who work 24 hours?

Mr. Walker: The legal profession is not a responsibility of my Department. I accept that any economic advantages which can be gained wherever shift work proves to be advantageous must be weighed against the social consequences.

Factory Inspectors

Mr. Ted Fletcher: asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what percentage increase has taken place in the employment of factory inspectors since 1960.

Mr. Fernyhough: Between 1960 and 1968 the establishment of factory inspectors increased by 34·6 per cent. and the effective strength by 30 per cent.

Mr. Fletcher: Does my hon. Friend agree that the number of factory inspectors is still inadequate, and will he say what representations he has received from the Trades Union Congress to increase the number?

Mr. Fernyhough: I cannot answer the last part of my hon. Friend's question without notice. I accept that there are not enough inspectors—I have said that we are under establishment—and this is why we are constantly advertising for more men who have the necessary skills.

North-East Development Area

Mr. Blenkinsop: asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity how many employers have undertaken off-the-job training schemes at semi-skilled level and for upgrading adult workers to skilled level in the North-East and in other development areas; and what Government assistance has been provided

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity (Mr. Roy Hattersley): I regret that information is mot available to answer the first part of

the Question. On the second part, a scheme of grants was introduced last year under which £2 million was made available to encourage off-the-job training schemes at the semi-skilled level. Applications to the value of £1,150,000 have been approved or are under consideration.

Mr. Blenkinsop: As this is a very important matter, will my hon. Friend follow it up with inquiries, since there seems to be evidence that employers are not taking as much advantage of these opportunities as they might?

Mr. Hattersley: At the beginning, there was that fear, but the scheme was extended as employers began to demand, or at least request, additional assistance under it, much of it stimulated by the beneficial effects of the regional employment premium.

Mr. Moonman: The first part of my hon. Friend's Answer will disappoint many of us on this side. Will he consider making a Paper available and also indicating the growth of off-the-job training schemes during the past three or four years?

Mr. Hattersley: I shall consider that; but to give an accurate picture we shall have to define the terms a little more precisely than they are in the original Question.

Mr. Blenkinsop: asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity how many applications, up to October, 1967, and since that date, have been made by new or expanding firms in the North-East development area for Government assistance to help meet the cost of training additional labour; how many of such applications have been approved; and what has been the amount of the assistance for each of the two periods.

Mr. Hattersley: From September, 1964, to 30th September, 1967, there were 369 applications from firms in the Northern development area; 286 were approved. From 1st October, 1967, to 30th April, 1968, a further 158 applications were made, of which 117 have been approved. Ninety-nine applications were still under consideration at the end of April. Payments of grants totalled


£400,000 up to and including September, 1967, and £294,000 from 1st October, 1967, to 31st March, 1968.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Does my hon. Friend regard that as a satisfactory response? Does it not show the willingness of the Government to give really practical assistance in this crucial respect?

Mr. Hattersley: Not only do I regard it as a satisfactory response, but I know it to be a response which is difficult to assimilate at a single hearing. What it means in simple terms is that the rate of application has more than trebled over the. recent past.

Safety, Health and Welfare

Mr. Ted Fletcher: asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity when she plans to introduce legislation along the lines indicated in the document entitled "New Safety, Health and Welfare Legislation".

Mr. Fernyhough: I regret that I am not yet in a position to say when the proposed legislation will come before the House. As my hon. Friend will appreciate, this is a very complex subject entailing a lot of consultation with interested parties, but we are pressing ahead as fast as we can.

Mr. Fletcher: This matter has now been under discussion for very many months and it is now urgent. May I press my hon. Friend to make a statement to the House at the earliest possible opportunity announcing the Government's intention to introduce legislation on the subject?

Mr. Fernyhough: I give my hon. Friend a firm promise now that it is our intention during the lifetime of this Parliament to endeavour to bring the new Bill forward.

British Steel Corporation (Dispute)

Mr. Victor Yates: asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity whether her Department has been notified of the threatened stoppage of work by staff employed by the British Steel Corporation over the question of union recognition; and what action she intends to take to resolve the dispute.

Mr. Harold Walker: Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend is meeting representatives of the Association of Scientific, Technical and Managerial Staffs and the Clerical and Administrative Workers' Union today.

Mr. Yates: I appreciate the prompt action taken by the Minister, but will my hon. Friend point out to his right hon. Friend that there is deep resentment felt by clerical staff, who have always been recognised by firms in the past, that such recognition is declined by the nationalised steel industry? There is great resentment. Will every effort be made to resolve what could be an ugly dispute?

Mr. Walker: It would be inadvisable for me to add to the reply which I have already given.

Mr. Tinn: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind in the consultations that more than one union is involved and take care not to short-circuit discussions which have been taking place in the T.U.C. on this matter with the other unions traditionally concerned in the steel industry?

Mr. Walker: I assure my hon. Friends that the views which they have expressed will be brought to my right hon. Friend's attention.

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: Is my hon. Friend saying that there has been no connection at any time between his Department and the British Steel Corporation and that no instructions have been given that it must recognise trade unions because it is a nationalised industry?

Mr. Walker: The Department has been continually informed about the situation, but we have not intervened until it was deemed appropriate. That intervention is occurring today.

COUNCIL OF EUROPE (GREECE)

Mr. John Fraser: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement on his policy regarding the latest decisions of the Council of Europe about the membership of Greece on the Council.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. William Rodgers): Although the situation in Greece was


debated at the meeting of the Consultative Assembly of the Council of Europe in Strasbourg at the beginning of May, no resolutions or recommendations were passed by the Assembly.

Mr. Fraser: One appreciates that there is still time for consideration at the Council of Europe, but is it not time that discussions about political developments in Greece were carried forward into the N.A.T.O. Council as well for decision there?

Mr. Rodgers: As my hon. Friend and the House know, certain procedures have been started through the agency of the Council of Europe, and I think that it is the general view that we must await the outcome of those while in the meantime hoping that Greece will move in the direction we all want to see.

Mr. Winnick: Will the British Government support the latest Scandinavian plea for political prisoners in Greece and the former Greek Prime Minister? Why does Britain tend to lag behind the Scandinavian countries in the concern felt by all democratic countries about political prisoners?

Mr. Rodgers: As I made clear in the debate on the subject of Greece just over a month ago, initiated by my hon. Friend, we have a great deal of sympathy with the initiative which the Scandinavian Governments took in the Council of Europe, and I think that no one reading that debate will have any doubt of how strongly we feel about those events in Greece to which all of us must take exception.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Putney Heath

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will set up an official inquiry into the causes of the damage to Putney Heath.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. James MacColl): Not if the right hon. Member is referring to the deposit of soil from road improvements. The Greater London Council can by their General Powers Act, 1966, deposit soil on the common in places agreed by the

Conservators. The council must afterwards grass the land and replace any buried trees.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Did the hon. Gentleman study the recent correspondence in The Times? Does his Answer imply that he is quite detached as regards the serious damage done to this lovely heath by the deposits there of masses of slag, gravel and rubble over certain parts of it, with permanent damage to some of the flora?

Mr. MacColl: Work is being carried out under powers authorised by Parliament, and the Conservators and the Greater London Council are in discussion with one another about how to maintain the amenities.

Industrialised Building (Selective Employment Tax)

Captain W. Elliot: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what estimate he has made, to the latest convenient date, of the effect on industrial building of the Selective Employment Tax.

Mr. MacColl: The effect on industrialised housebuilding costs will vary according to the system but will be less than the effect on contractors in general. That was covered in the reply given to the hon. Member for Meriden (Mr. Speed) on 14th May.—[Vol. 764, c. 229–30.]

Captain Elliot: Is not that a very vague Answer? Is it not a fact that the imposition of double S.E.T. has a very considerable effect on industrialised building?

Mr. MacColl: Industrialised building has some advantages in this matter over traditional building.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF HEALTH

Social Welfare of the Elderly

Mr. Kenneth Baker: asked the Minister of Health when the study on the social welfare of the elderly, which was submitted to the Government Social Survey on 14th December, 1965, is going to be completed and published.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Kenneth Robinson): A report summarising results in 11 areas in England, Wales and


Scotland is now in draft. The final version will be published as soon as possible.

Mr. Baker: Is not the Minister ashamed that the report on the social welfare of the elderly has taken nearly three years to get out, during which time many of the people being surveyed must have died? Will not he give the Government Social Survey a shot in the arm and get its work done quickly?

Mr. Robinson: Any questions about the workings of the Government Social Survey should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but I have no reason to believe that the Survey has been anything but expeditious in this matter, which it has carried out thoroughly.

WALES (BOMB EXPLOSIONS)

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. George Thomas): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I should life to make a statement concerning the bomb explosions in Wales.
At 3.28 a.m. on Saturday, 25th May, an explosion occurred in Crown Buildings, Cathays Park, Cardiff, the main administrative centre of the Welsh Office of the Secretary of State for Wales, and also of the Welsh Board of Health.
A device appears to have been placed on a basement window ledge below a stone bridge leading to the eastern entrance of the building. No one was injured, but the explosion caused a considerable amount of superficial damage to the building and furniture. Approximately 30 rooms were affected in some degree, with broken windows, doors and furniture; but no essential records were affected. The total cost of repairs and replacements is likely to be about £5,000.
Temporary repairs were carried out over the weekend, and all the rooms affected were ready for occupation by the staff this morning.
I have had consultations with the Chief Constable of Cardiff, and I understand from him that the Regional Crime Squad is co-operating with the Cardiff City police in the current investigation.
If any further assistance is required, and a request is made, it will, of course, be met.
At 2.45 a.m. today an explosion took place at the base of a stone and concrete support carrying an emergency pipeline from Lake Vyrnwy, in Motgomeryshire, supplying water to Liverpool. The seat of the explosion was about 20 yards below the dam immediately above the village of Llanwddyn.
No serious damage appears to have been caused and no one was injured. The supply of water from the reservoir has in no way been affected.
Liverpool Corporation officials and local police are investigating the extent of the damage. No estimate of cost is at present available.
It is clear that these outrages have been committed for political reasons. The House and the people of Wales will roundly condemn this attempt at political terrorism.

Mr. Gibson-Watt: Will the Minister accept that all parts of the House will join with his concluding remarks about the anxiety we all feel over these two explosions? How many explosions of this sort have occurred in the past 12 months in the Principality? What are the Government doing to find out who perpetrated them?

Mr. Thomas: There have been four of these explosions in the Principality during the past 12 months. The police force is at full stretch to find out the people who did it, and I have no doubt at all that it will welcome the support of the general public who may have seen anything unusual on Saturday night or this morning. [Laughter.] It so happens that a police officer was standing on the spot 10 minutes before this explosion. He would have been killed. We cannot find anything humorous in the situation.

Mr. E. Rowlands: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is grave disquiet in South Wales because we believe that there was no apparent sign of progress in tracking down those responsible for the two previous explosions in Cardiff? Does he think that it is now time to call in not only the Regional Crime Squad, but to give it complete and unequivocal charge of the investigation, assisted by Special Branch detectives from Scotland Yard? Should not we treat this as a national matter?

Mr. Thomas: I have been in touch with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary this morning, and I have no doubt that any resources the police require will be made available. But the way in which the police do their work is a matter for the police.

Mr. Hooson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the vast majority of Welsh people condemn these acts of terrorism, whatever party they belong to? Is he aware that there is very great concern in Wales that none of the perpetrators of the latest outrages over the weekend or the previous outrages have been discovered? As there were previous bomb outrages in Wales in which the perpetrators were discovered, is it not a sign that they are becoming more skilful? What further steps do the Government intend to take in the matter?

Mr. Thomas: I do not know whether the hon. and learned Gentleman expects my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to act as Sherlock Holmes [Laughter.] It is patently absurd to try to criticise the Government because the police have not found the criminals. Unfortunately, on the last occasion when a man was found guilty, and sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment, the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Gwynfor Evans) issued leaflets outside the court in which he said:
Although we do not agree with the action they have taken, we cannot condemn them.
Any statement that encourages people to political violence is to be deplored.

Mr. Gwynfor Evans: Is the Minister aware that Plaid Cymru has condemned without reservation these outrages? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] It has done so consistently. Is he aware that it condemns his own verbal explosion over the weekend, in which he said that Plaid Cymru had wrought havoc in the life of Wales? Will he withdraw that and apologise? Is he prepared to face the fact that the havoc has been in the Labour Party in Wales?

Mr. Thomas: The hon. Gentleman must have forgotten the leaflets he distributed at the time of the Tryweryn explosion. The leaflet he issued whilst the case was being tried said that those who blew up the transformer
… have merely tried to implement the wishes of the people of Wales …

I believe that statements of that sort have led on to these bomb outrages.

Mr. James Griffiths: Has my right hon. Friend seen reports in the Press of statements by some of the leaders of Plaid Cymru that this and other explosions were organised by agents of the Government? Will he make inquiries into that? Does not he share the view of many of us that it is time Plaid Cymru spoke to some of these people and stopped some of this anti-English hatred propaganda which is inducing the young people to do these things?

Mr. Thomas: My right hon. Friend is quite right. Anti-English hatred which is being fostered, and the talk of separatism, have created an atmosphere that makes deeds of violence likely.

Mr. Gwynfor Evans: Nonsense.

Mr. Thomas: The hon. Member for Carmarthen said at the weekend that he thought it possible that this was done by secret service agents of the Government. All he has done is to reveal his own uneasiness. That statement of his sounds very like an attempt at political self-defence.

Mr. Fortescue: Will the Secretary of State use what influence he has in Wales to ensure that these terrorists concentrate their energies on other cities and not always on Liverpool? [Laughter.]

Mr. Thomas: The lives of Welsh people are in danger. People could have died in these explosions. I cannot for the life of me understand the Opposition thinking that this is an amusing business.

Mr. Heffer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that every hon. Member regards this as a most serious matter? Is he further aware that we in Liverpool consider it increasingly serious, because, on each occasion a bomb outrage interrupts water supply, or there is an attempt to do so, it is the people of Liverpool who have to pay for it? We would like to know who is to pay the cost on this occasion. Why should the ratepayers of Liverpool bear the full cost of these irresponsibilities on the part of a small section of people in Wales?

Mr. Thomas: Unfortunately, every time an act of terrorism takes place the innocent have to pay, and both the Welsh


people and the people of Liverpool will be paying the price of these explosions.

Mr. Glower: All parties deplore these incidents. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that prompt and effective action to apprehend the criminals is more important than allegation and counter-allegation? Will he assure the House that possibly some extraordinary measures will be taken to effect the results desired?

Mr. Thomas: I do not know quite what the hon. Gentleman wants me to say. I have every confidence that all the resources of the police will be used to bring those responsible to book.

Mr. Anderson: In contrast to what the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Gwynfor Evans) has said, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he realises that his statement on Saturday that these outrages have to be seen in the context of the vein of hatred fostered by certain nationalist elements has been greeted by all men and women of good will in Wales as the best example of plain speaking that we have had on this subject for a long time?

Mr. Sandys: Is it a coincidence that this happened the day after the Minister of Technology, in a speech in Wales, predicted an explosion?

Mr. Thomas: As usual, the right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) is a day late. This incident took place before my right hon. Friend spoke.

Mr. Clifford Williams: Will my right hon. Friend explain to the House what the difference is between the situation some years ago during the desperate days of destitution in South Wales, when that revolutionary fighter, Tom Mann, was put in prison because he was going to make a speech, and now, when, during the weekend, according to the Liverpool Post, the so-called "commander" of the "free Wales army" said—and I quote—

Mr. Speaker: Order. No quotation is allowed in a supplementary question.

Mr. Clifford Williams: Will my right hon. Friend call the attention of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to this

kind of statement, or put these people away somewhere safe?

Mr. Thomas: I know that the House and the country will have noted with concern not only the statement to which my hon. Friend refers, but the statement made on television on Saturday night. My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General assures me that he is already make inquiries into the broadcast that has caused concern.

Mr. Abse: Will my right hon. Friend note that the people of Monmouthshire, possessed, as they are, of robust common sense, treat with utter contempt the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Gwynfor Evans), who, in an attempt to avoid his own personal responsibility for his own inflamatory speeches, has made the lunatic suggestion that responsibility for these explosions is attached to M.I.5?
Will my right hon. Friend take special security measures in view of the past threats to the Severn Bridge, and also make it clear to industrialists that no views such as those expressed by the people responsible for these explosions belong to the general weal of Wales and Monmouthshire?

Mr. Thomas: My hon. Friend has touched upon one of the most serious aspects of this matter. Of course, I cannot go into the security measures taken, but I want to assure industrialists from outside Wales that this sort of conduct is not supported by the Welsh people. I hope that it will have no effect upon those we want to get to Wales to provide employment for our people.

COMPLAINT OF PRIVILEGE

Mr. Palmer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to raise with you an issue of privilege.
Yesterday, 26th May, in the Observer, there appeared an article entitled, "Biological Warfare: Dons Named". This appears to be an account of evidence which was given to the Select Committee on Science and Technology, of which I am Chairman, at the Porton Down Research Establishment on 6th May. So far, this evidence has not been


reported to the House and for the moment is entirely confidential to members of the Select Committee.
It would appear, therefore, that a breach of privilege has been caused. I would be grateful for your Ruling.

Mr. Speaker: Would the hon. Gentleman bring to me the newspaper of which he complains?

Copy of newspaper handed in.

Mr. Speaker: I shall consider the matter in the light of the precedents and give my Ruling tomorrow, after Question Time, having taken the usual time of 24 hours in which to study the submission made by the hon. Member.

BILL PRESENTED

SALE OF TICKETS (STREET OFFENCES)

Bill to prohibit in certain circumstances the sale or resale in streets or public places of any ticket for entry or admission to any sporting event or entertainment; and for connected purposes; presented by Mr. Alfred Morris; supported by Mr. Roland Moyle, Mr. John Farr, Mr, Eric Lubbock, Mrs. Braddock, Mr. Alex Eadie, Mr. Albert Booth, Mr. William Hamling, Mr. Laurence Pavitt, and Mr. Albert Murray; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday 14th June and to be printed. [Bill 164.]

TRANSPORT (PRICES & INCOMES BOARD REPORT)

Mr. Peter Walker: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I believe that the Government have in their possession the Report of the Prices and Incomes Board on Railway Fares and Freight Charges. This is due to be published on Thursday, but in view of the vital importance of this document and of the Government's attitude to it and to Parts I, II and TV of the Transport Bill, may I ask whether copies will be made immediately available to hon. Members, or whether, alternatively, discussions on the Report stage of the Bill will be deferred until the Report is published?

Mr. Speaker: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, he knows that that is not a point for the Chair. It is a point that he must take up with the Ministers concerned.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I accept your Ruling, Sir, but, following that point, is this not a matter on which it is the duty of the Leader of the House to help the House, if it is true, as my hon. Friend says, that the document is now ready but is being withheld until Thursday, and is highly material to the debate on which the House is about to embark? May I, through you, appeal to the Leader of the House to help us in this matter?

Mr. Speaker: That is still not a point for Mr. Speaker.

TRANSPORT BILL (ALLOCATION OF TIME)

Motion made, and Question put:—

Division No. 167.]
AYES
[3.50 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Fernyhough, E.
Lewis, Ron (Carl[...]sle)


Albu, Austen
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Lipton, Marcus


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Lomas, Kenneth


Alldritt, Walter
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Loughlin, Charles


Allen, Scholefield
Foley, Maurice
Luard, Evan


Anderson, Donald
Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipswich)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)


Archer, Peter
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Armstrong, Ernest
Ford, Ben
McBride, Neil


Atkins Ronald (Preston, N.)
Forrester, John
McCann, John


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Fowler, Gerry
McColl, James


Bagler, Gordon A. T.
Fraser, John (Norwood)
MacDermot, Niall


Barnes, Michael
Freeson, Reginald
Macdonald, A. H.


Barnett, Joel
Galpern, Sir Myer
McGuire, Michael


Baxter, William
Gardner, Tony
McKay. Mrs. Margaret


Bence, Cyril
Garrett, W. E.
Mackintosh, John P.


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Ginsburg, David
Maclennan, Robert


Bennett James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Gourlay, Harry
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)



Bidwell, Sydney
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
MacPherson, Malcolm


Binns, John
Gregory, Arnold
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)


Blackburn, F.
Grey, Charles (Durham)
Mahon, Simon (Bootie)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Booth, Albert
Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Manuel, Archie


Boyden, James
Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.
Mapp, Charles


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Marks, Kenneth


Bradley, Tom
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Hamling, William
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy


Brooks, Edwin
Harper, Joseph
Maxwell, Robert


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mayhew, Christopher


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Haseldine, Norman
Mendelson, J. J.


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Hattersley, Roy
Mikardo, Ian


Buchan, Norman
Hazell, Bert
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Heffer, Eric S.
Milne, Edward (Blyth)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Henig, Stanley
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)


Carmichael, Neil
Hobden, Dennis (Brighton K'town)
Molloy, William


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Hooley, Frank
Moonman, Eric


Chapman, Donald
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Coe, Denis
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Coleman, Donald
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Concannon, J. D.
Howie, W.
Morris, John (Aberavon)


Conlan, Bernard
Hoy, James
Moyle, Roland


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Huckfield, Leslie
Murray, Albert


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Neal, Harold


Crawshaw, Richard
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrsh're, S.)
Newens, Stan


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Oakes, Gordon


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Hunter, Adam
Ogden, Eric


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Hynd, John
O'Malley, Brian


Dalyell, Tam
Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge H'll)
Oram, Albert E.


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Jackson, Col'n (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Orme, Stanley


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)



Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Oswald, Thomas


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Jeger, George, (Goole)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n &amp;St. P' cras, S.)
Owen, Will (Morpeth)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Paget, R. T.


Delargy, Hugh
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Palmer, Arthur


Dell, Edmund
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Dempsey, James
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Park, Trevor


Dewar, Donald
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W.Ham, S.)
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Parkin, Ben (Paddington, N.)


Dickens, James
Judd, Frank
Pavitt, Laurence


Dobson, Ray
Kellay, Richard
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Driberg, Tom
Kenyon, Clifford
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Dunn, James A.
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Pentland, Norman


Dunnett, Jack
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Dun woody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.


Dunwoody, Dr. John(F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Lawson, George
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)


Eadie, Alex
Leadbitter, Ted
Probert, Arthur


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Randall, Harry


Ellis, John
Lee, John (Reading)
Rankin, John


English, Michael
Lestor, Miss Joan
Rees, Merlyn


Ennals, David
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Ensor, David
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Reynolds, G. W.

That the Report [21st May] of the Business Committee be now considered.—[Mr. Peart.]

The House divided: Ayes 284, Noes 218.

Richard, Ivor
Spriggs, Leslie
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael
Weitzman, David


Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Stonehouse, John
Wellbeloved, James


Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)
Strauss, Rt. Hn. C. R.
Whitaker, Ben


Robertson, John (Paisley)
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
White, Mrs. Eirene


Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St.P'c'as)
Swain, Thomas
Whitlock, William


Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)
Swingler, Stephen
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Symonds, J. B.
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Roebuck, Roy
Taverne, Dick
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Rose, Paul
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff,W.)
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Ross, Rt. Hn. William
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)
Thornton, Ernest
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)



Ryan, John
Tinn, James
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)
Tomney, Frank
Winnick, David


Sheldon, Robert
Urwin, T. W.
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.
Varley, Eric G.
Woof, Robert


Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)
Wyatt, Woodrow


Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Walden, Brian (All Saints)
Yates, Victor


Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)



Slater, Joseph
Wallace, George
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Small, William
Watkins, David (Consett)
Mr. Ioan L. Evans and




Mr. Ernest G. Perry.




NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Emery, Peter
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)


Astor, John
Eyre, Reginald
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)


Awdry, Daniel
Fortescue, Tim
Longden, Gilbert


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Foster, Sir John
Lubbock, Eric


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'frord &amp; Stone)
McAdden, Sir Stephen


Batsford, Brian
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
MacArthur, Ian


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Gibson-Watt, David
Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross&amp;Crom'ty)


Bell, Ronald
Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos &amp; Fhm)
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Glyn, Sir Richard
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)


Bessell, Peter
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Maddan, Martin


Biffen, John
Goodhart, Philip
Maginnis, John E.


Biggs-Davison, John
Goodhew, Victor
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Gower, Raymond
Marten, Neil


Black, Sir Cyril
Grant, Anthony
Maude, Angus


Blaker, Peter
Grant-Ferris, R.
Mawby, Ray


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Gresham Cooke, R.
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.


Body, Richard
Grieve, Percy
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Bossom, Sir Clive
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Mitchell, David, (Basingstoke)


Braine, Bernard
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Monro, Hector


Brewis, John
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Montgomery, Fergus


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. SirWalter
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Bryan, Paul
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Murton, Oscar


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus,N&amp;M)
Hawkins, Paul
Nicholls, Sir Harmar


Bullus, Sir Eric
Hay, John
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Burden. F. A.
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Onslow, Cranley


Campbell, Gordon
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Orr, Capt L P. S.


Carlisle, Mark
Heseltine, Michael
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Higgins, Terence L.
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Cary, Sir Robert
Hiley, Joseph
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Channon, H. P. G.
Hill, J. E. B.
Pardoe, John


Chichester-Clark, R.
Holland, Philip
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)


Clark, Henry
Hooson, Emlyn
Peel, John


Cooke, Robert
Hornby, Richard
Peyton, John


Corfield, F. V.
Howell, David (Guildford)
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Costain, A. P.
Hunt, John
Pink, R. Bonner


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Sir Oliver
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Pounder, Rafton


Crouch, David
Iremonger, T. L.
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Crowder, F. P.
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Prior, J. M. L.


Currie, G. B. H.
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Pym, Francis


Dalkeith, Earl of
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Dance, James
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Davidson, James(Aberdeenshire, W.)
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
Kershaw, Anthony
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Kirk, Peter
Ridsdale, Julian


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Kitson, Timothy
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Doughty, Charles
Lambton, Viscount
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Lancaster Col. C. G.
Royle, Anthony


Drayson, G. B.
Lane, David
Russell, Sir Ronald


Eden, Sir John
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
St. John-Stevas, Norman







Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.
Temple, John M.
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Scott-Hopkins, James
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Whitelaw Rt. Hn. William


Sharples, Richard
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Tilney, John
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Silvester, Frederick
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Sinclair, Sir George
Van Straubenzee, W. R.
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Speed, Keith
Vickers, Dame Joan
Woodnutt, Mark


Stainton, Keith
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)
Worsley, Marcus


Stodart, Anthony
Walker, Peter (Worcester)
Wright, Esmond



Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek
Wylie, N. R.


Tapsell, Peter
Wall, Patrick
Younger, Hn. George


Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Walters, Dennis



Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)
Weatherill, Bernard
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Webster, David
Mr. R. W. Elliott and




Mr. Jasper More.

Report considered accordingly.

Question, That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution, put forthwith pursuant to Standing

Division No. 168.]
AYES



Abse, Leo
Delargy, Hugh
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)


Albu, Austen
Dempsey, James
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Dewar, Donald
Howie, W.


Alldritt, Walter
Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Hoy, James


Allen, Scholefield
Dickens, James
Huckfield, Leslie


Anderson, Donald
Dobson, Ray
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)


Archer, Peter
Driberg, Tom
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)


Armstrong, Ernest
Dunn, James A.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Dunnett, Jack
Hughes Roy (Newport)


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Hunter, Adam


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Hynd, John


Barnes, Michael
Eadie, Alex
Irvine, Sir Arthur(Edge Hill)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Ennals, David
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Ensor, David
Jeger, Geroge (Goole)


Bidwell, Sydney
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n &amp; St.P'cras, S.)


Binns, John
Fernyhough, E.
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Blackburn, F.
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)


Booth, Albert
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Foley, Maurcie
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Boyden, James
Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipswich)
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn(W. Ham, S.)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Foot, Micheal (Ebbw Vale)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)


Bradley, Tom 
Ford, Ben
Judd, Frank


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Forrester, John
Kelley, Richard


Brooks, Edwin
Fowler, Gerry
Kenyon, Clifford


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Freeson, Reginald
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)


Brown, Bob(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Galpen, sir Myer
Kerr, Russell(Feltham)


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Gardner, Tony
Lawson, George


Buchan, Norman
Garrett, w. E.
Leadbitter, Ted


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Ginsburg, David
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)


Butler, Hertbert (Hackney, C.)
Gourlay, Harry
Lee, John (Reading)


Carmicheal, Neil
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Lestor, Miss Joan


Castle, Rt. Hn Barbara
Gregory, Arnold
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)


Chapman, Donald
Grey, Charles (Durham)
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)


Coe, Denis
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Coleman, Donald
Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James, (Llanelly)
Lipton, Marcus


Concannon, J.D.
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Lomas, Kenneth


Conlan, Bernard




Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.
Loughlin, Charles


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Luard, Evan.


Crawshaw Richard
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York) 


Cronin, John
Hamling, William
Maborn, Dr. J. Dickson


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Harper, Joseph
McBride, Neil


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
McCann, John


Cullen, Mrs. Allce
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
MacColl, James


Dalyell, Tam
Haseldine, Norman
MacDermot, Niall


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Hattersley, Roy
Macdonald, A. H.


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Hazell, Bert
McGuire, Michael


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Heffer, Eric S.
McKay, Mrs. Margaret


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Henig, Stanley
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)
Mackintosh, John P.


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Hooley, Frank
Maclennan, Robert


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

Order No. 43A (Allocation of time to Bills)

The House divided: Ayes 282, Noes 215.

MacPherson, Malcolm
Park, Trevor
Stonehouse, John


Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Parkin, Ben (Paddington, N.)
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Pavitt, Laurence
Swain, Thomas


Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield,E.)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Swingler, Stephen


Manuel, Archie
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Symonds, J. B.


Mapp, Charles
Pentland, Norman
Taverne, Dick


Marks, Kenneth
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.) 
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George


Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.
Thorton, Ernest


Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)
Tinn, James


Maxwell, Robert
Robert, Arthur
Tomney, Frank


Mayhew, Christopher
Randall, Harry
Urwin, T. W.


Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Rankin, John
Varley, Eric G.


Mendelson, J. J.
Rees, Merlyn
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Mikardo, Ian
Reynolds, G. W.
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Miller, Dr. M. S.
Rhodes, Geoffrey
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Richard, Ivor
Wallace, George


Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Watkins, David (Consett)


Molloy, William
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Moonman, Eric
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.) 
 Weitzman, David


Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Robertston, John (Paisley)
Wellbeloved, James


Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kermeth (St.P'c'as)
Whitaker, Ben


Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Robinson, W. 0. J. (Walth-stow, E.)
White, Mrs. Eirene


Morris, John (Aberavon)
Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Whitlock, William


Moyle, Roland
Roebuck, Roy
Will ants, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Murray, Albert
Rose, Paul
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Neal, Harold
Ross, Rt. Hn. William
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Oakes, Gordon
Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)



Ogden, Eric
Ryan, John
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


O'Malley, Brian
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Oram, Albert E.
Sheldon, Robert
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Orme, Stanley
Shinwell. Rt. Hn. E.
Winnick, David


Oswald, Thomas
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Woof, Robert


Owen, Will (Morpeth)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Wyatt, Woodrow


Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
Slater, Joseph
Yates, Victor


Paget, R. T.
Small, William



Palmer, Arthur
Spriggs, Leslie
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael
Mr. Ioan L. Evans and




Mr. Ernest G. Perry.




NOES


Alison Michael (Barkston Ash)
Cooke, Robert
Grieve, [...]P ry[...]


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Corfield, F. V.
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)


Astor John
Costain, A. P.
Hall, John (Wycombe)


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n) 
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Sir Oliver
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.


Awdry Daniel
Crouch, David
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Baker Kenneth (Acton)
Crowder, F. P.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Cunningham, Sir Knox
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)


Batsford, Brian
Currie, G. B. H.
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere


Beamish Col. Sir Tufton
Dalkeith, Earl of
Hawkins, Paul


Bell Ronald
Dance, James
Hay, John


Bennett, Dr. Reginald(Gos &amp; Fhm) 
Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire,W.)
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel


Berry, Hn. Anthony
d'Avlgdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward


Bessell Peter
Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
Heseltine, Michael


Biffen, John
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Higgins, Terence L.



Biggs-Davison, John
Digby, Simon Wingfield 
Hiley, Joseph


Birch Rt. Hn. Nigel
Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Hill, J. E. B.


Black, Sir Cyril
Doughty, Charles
Hirst, Geoffrey


Blaker Peter
Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Holland, Philip


Boardinan, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Drayson, G. B.
Hordern, Peter


Body, Richard
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Hornby, Richard


Bossom, Sir Clive
Eden, Sir John
Howell, David (Guildford)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Hunt, John


Braine, Bernard
Emery, Peter
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Brewis John
Eyre, Reginald
Iremonger, T. L.


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Fisher, Nigel
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt-Col. Sir Walter
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)


Brown Sir Edward (Bath)
Fortescue, Tim
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)


Bruce-Gardvne J.
Foster, Sir John
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Bryan, Paul
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
Kerby, Capt. Henry


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N &amp; M) 
 Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Kershaw, Anthony


Bullus Sir Eric
Gibson-Watt, David.
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)


Burden, F. A.
Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan
Kirk, Peter


Campbell, Cordon
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Kitson, Timothy


Carlisle, Mark
Glyn, Sir Richard
Lambton, Viscount


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.


Cary, Sir Robert
Goodhart, Philip
Lane, David


Channon, H. P. G.
Goodhew, Victor
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Chichester-Clark, R.
Gower, Raymond
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey(Sut'nC'dfield)


Clark, Henry
Grant, Anthony
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)


Clegg, Walter
Gresham Cooke, R.
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)







Longden, Gilbert
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)
Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)


Lubbock, Eric
Peyton, John
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


McAdden, Sir Stephen
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Temple, John M.


MacArthur, Ian
Pink, R. Bonner
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross &amp; Crom'ty) 
Pounder, Rafton
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Tilney, John


Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Prior, J. M. L.
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Maddan, Martin
Pym, Francis
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Maginnis, John E.
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Vickers, Dame Joan


Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Marten, Neil
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Maude, Angus
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. sir Derek


Mawby, Ray
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Wall, Patrick


Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Walters, Dennis


Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Ridsdale, Julian
Weatherill, Bernard


Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Rodgers Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Webster, David


Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Monro, Hector
Royle, Anthony
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Montgomery, Fergus
St. John-Stevas, Norman
Williams, Donald (Dudey)


Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Scott-Hopkins, James
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Sharpies, Richard
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Murton, Oscar
Silvester, Frederick
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Neave, Airey
Sinclair Sir George
Woodnutt, Mark


Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington) 
Worsley, Marcus


Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)
Wright, Esmond


Onslow, Cranley
Speed, Keith
Wylie, N. R.


Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Stainton, Keith
Younger, Hn. George


Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian
Stodart, Anthony



Page, Graham (Crosby)
Stoddart-Scott, Cal. Sir R. (Ripon)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Tapsell, Peter
Mr. R. W. Elliott and


Pardoe, John
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Mr. Jasper More.

Following is the Report of the Business Committee:

That—

(a) the Proceedings on Consideration of the Transport Bill shall be divided into the parts specified in the second column of the Table set out below;

(b) the three days which under the Order [14th March] are given to the Proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading, and portions of those days, shall be allotted in the manner shown in that Table; and
(c) subject to the provisions of the Order [14th March] each part of the Proceedings shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion at the time specified in the third column of that Table.

TABLE


Allotted day
Proceedings
Time for conclusion of Proceedings


First day
New Clauses
7.0 p.m. 



Part I
9.30 p.m.



Part II
Four and a half hours after 10.0 p.m.



Part III
—


Second day
Part III
4.0 p.m. 



 Part IV
8.0 p.m. 



Part V
—


Third day
Part V
6.0 p.m. 




Part VI
8.30 p.m.



Parts VII and VIII
11.0 p.m.



Parts IX and X, New Schedules, Schedules, and any proceedings necessary to bring the Proceedings on Consideration to a conclusion.
Three and a half hours after 10.0 p.m.



Third Reading
Five and a half hours after 10.0 p.m.

Orders of the Day — TRANSPORT BILL

[1ST ALLOTTED DAY]

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Mr. Speaker: I have, as is my wont, posted up the selected Amendments and new Clauses. We begin with new Clause 1.

New Clause 1

PROVISIONS WITH RESPECT TO OPERATION OF PUBLIC SERVICE VEHICLES

(1) When any traffic commissioners are considering whether or not to exercise their power under Section 127(7) of the Act of 1960 to refuse a person a public service vehicle licence, or to suspend or revoke one or more of any such licences already granted to a person, on the ground of that person's unfitness to be the holder thereof, the commissioners—

(a) shall have regard to any information they may have with respect to the matters specified in subsection (2) of this section; and
(b) shall consider any representations with respect to any of those matters made by any of the following persons, namely—

(i) any such trade union within the meaning of the Trade Union Act 1913 or other association as the Minister may by regulations prescribe, being a union or other association whose members consist of or include persons holding public service vehicle licences or employees of any such persons; 
(ii) a chief officer of police; 
(iii) in England or Wales, the council of a county, county borough, county district or London borough, the Greater London Council, or the Common Council of the City of London; 
(iv) in Scotland, a county or town council; 

and in the said section 127(7) for the words 'such a licence' there shall be substituted the words 'the licence in question'. 



(2) The matters referred to in subsection (l)(a) of this section are—

(a) the previous conduct of the person in question in relation to any trade or business in the course of which vehicles of any description are operated, being a trade or business—

(i) carried on by him or by a company of which he is or has been a director; or
(ii) for the purposes of which he is or has been employed; 


(b) the arrangements for securing that Part VI of this Act or, so long as it remains in force, section 73 of the Act of 1960 is complied with in the case of the vehicle or vehicles in question; 
(c) he facilities and arrangements for maintaining the vehicle or vehicles in question in a fit and serviceable condition; 
(d) the manner in which the vehicle in question is proposed to be used or, as the case may be, in which the vehicle or vehicles in question have been used; 
(e) the financial resources of the person in question. 

(3) In section 152 of the Act of 1960 (which imposes on the holder of a road service licence certain obligations as respects wages and conditions of employment of persons employed by him in connection with the operation of a public service vehicle)— 

(a) for any reference to the holder of a road service licence there shall be substituted a reference to the holder of a public service vehicle licence; 
(b) in subsection (2), the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity shall be substituted for the traffic commissioners as the person to whom representations under that subsection are to be made; and
(c) for subsection (4) there shall be substituted the following: —

'(4) If it is decided by the Industrial Court that a person has been guilty of a breach of the provisions of this section, the traffic commissioners by whom any public service vehicle licence has been granted to that person may suspend or revoke that licence or refuse to grant a further such licence to that person; and a licence suspended under this subsection shall during the time of suspension be of no effect.'—[Mr. Swingler.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

4.12 p.m.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Transport (Mr. Stephen Swingler): I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
Hon. Members who are acquainted with matters relating to public service vehicles will understand that, although it seems lengthy, the new Clause is, nevertheless, clear, straightforward and simple in regard to the application of conditions of licensing. The Clause, like so many other new Clauses and Amendments with which we are to deal, represents the response of the Government to points raised by back benchers in the Standing Committee. This one is in response to a point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Bridgeton (Mr. James Bennett) and some of his hon. Friends when we were discussing quality licensing, which relates to commercial vehicles, namely, that we


should have a system of applying quality licensing to public service vehicles.
Under the existing law, namely, Section 127 of the Road Traffic Act, 1960, a public service vehicle licence is already in a sense a quality licence since it can be refused, suspended or revoked by the traffic commissioners, if it appears to the commissioners, having examined the conduct of the operator in question, or the manner in which the vehicles are being used, that he is not a fit person to hold a licence. However, hon. Members will know very well that a public service vehicle licence also has another function in so far as it controls the fitness of individual vehicles.
This Clause is produced in response to the representations which I have mentioned. First of all, it would enable the traffic commissioners to receive representation on specified matters connected with the fitness of operators of public service vehicles just as in the quality licensing system. Secondly the trade unions, the local authorities and the police are also to have rights of representation to the commissioners, and, thirdly, the Clause extends to holders of public service vehicle licences the provisions of Section 152 of the Road Traffic Act, 1960, namely, the so-called "fair wages clause", which at present applies only to holders of road service licences, and, incidentally, it substitutes the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity for the traffic commissioners as the person to whom complaints are appropriately to be made under the fair wages provision.
The purpose here is to strengthen the law by spelling out the "fit person" criterion in Section 127 of the 1960 Act in more detail, and by providing statu-torily for the traffic commissioners to entertain representations about an operator's fitness. If the commissioners, as a result of representations, or on their own initiative, propose to exercise the power to refuse, revoke or suspend a licence they will give notice of this in notices and proceedings and it will be at the commissioners' discretion to hold a public hearing before deciding whether to refuse, suspend or revoke a licence. The appeal rights of operators in respect of such judgments of the commissioners will, of course, remain.
May I, in addition, say a few words about Section 152 of the Road Traffic Act, 1960. This Section provides that

the wages and conditions of employment of the workers employed by a road service licence holder must be no less favourable than those applicable under the "fair wages clause", that is the fair wages Resolution adopted by the House of Commons in relation to Government contracts. This also provides that an employer should recognise the freedom of his workers to be members of trade unions.
We have endeavoured, in this Clause, in response to representations made in Committee, to incorporate this aspect and to apply Section 152, which now applies to public service vehicles operated by someone who holds a road service licence, to operators who do only contract work. We think that it is reasonable, as represented by many of my hon. Friends, that we should extend this provision and enable failure to comply with Section 152 of the Road Traffic Act to be treated as a ground on which traffic commissioners may refuse, revoke or suspend an operator's public service vehicle licence.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: I was hoping that the Minister might have given us some indication of the representations which have been made to the industry as a result of points raised in Committee and of what it has had to say about the new Clause. Obviously, as the House will be aware, the industry, though consulted, has had remarkably little time to formulate any opinion, but, I understand, the opinions which it has formulated are almost universally against this particular proposal.
It would have been reasonable to have expected the Minister of State to cover this point, especially as the Clause has come so late in the proceedings of the Bill. I would like to have heard not only the views of the industries concerned, but the views of the traffic commissioners, since it is the powers of the commissioners which are being changed by this proposal, and they have been administering the previous proposals for over 30 years. It would, therefore, have been likely to have come from them if they had found deficiencies in the legislation which needed amendment of the sort we are discussing today.
I am not aware that there has been any such submission from the traffic commissioners. My strong suspicion is that if


the industry or the traffic commissioners, the two bodies who have the greatest knowledge of these problems, had wanted this legisation in the first place, then it would have found its way into the Bill. The fact that it did not find its way into the draft until so late in the proceedings confirms my suspicion that legislation in this form is not required by the people who have to operate it.
The Minister was fair in pointing out the differences between goods vehicles, to which quality licensing is to apply, and bus vehicles, to which it was not originally intended that it should apply. As the Passenger Vehicle Operators' Asociation made quite clear to the Ministry in its letter of 15th May, there is a different system applying to lorries, on the one hand, and to buses, on the other. For lorries there are blanket licences, but for buses there is licensing of individual vehicles, and much more is in the hands of the traffic commissioners, and has been for a very long period of time. I am not aware of any serious body of complaint about the way in which this legislation has worked over 38 years.
My gravest anxieties come when I move to that part of the Clause which deals with what the Minister referred to as a fit person. In trying to define a fit person, as opposed to leaving it to be interpreted, as it has been over many years, by the traffic commissioners, one runs into difficulties which we on this side of the House would anticipate and would not wish to see spelt out in legislation. If I may draw the attention of the House to the matters which are now to be taken into consideration by the traffic commissioners in applying the new form of quality licensing, my anxieties will be clearly understood.
First, the traffic commissioners will take into account the previous conduct of the person in question in relation to any trade or business in the course of which vehicles of any description are operated. The previous conduct does not mean the previous conduct of the operator running buses, or the way in which he has conducted himself as a businessman in this sort of industry. The Clause enables his previous conduct to be brought into consideration, with no attempt to define pre-

cisely what is meant by that. It could be that a divorced man would be considered unsuitable because his previous standards do not match up to the standards of the traffic commisioner.
The Clause does not only apply to the industry in which the man is now applying for a licence, but a traffic commissioner can take into account the man's performance in any trade, regardless of the relevance of that trade to the industry in which he is now applying for a licence.
The only qualification in the Clause is that it should be a trade in the course of which vehicles of any descriptions are operated. I have spent a long time trying to think of some trades in which vehicles of some description or other are not operated. There is absolutely no operation in commercial life today in which does not involve vehicles of some description. This qualification is no safeguard whatsoever to the applicant.
Subsection (2,e) deals with the financial resources of the person in question. This is an unnecessarily vague restriction. What exactly is in the Ministry's mind in talking about the financial resources of a fit person? For example, if a man has bought his bus on hire purchase, will it be said that his financial resources are not sufficiently strong to enable him to conduct a business? Will it be taken into account thay at some past date he might have been a bankrupt?
The House will be as familiar as I am with the list of highly successful men who, having at an early stage in their life gone bankrupt, have later paid off their debts and made a very substantial commercial contribution. If a man has borrowed money, or borrowed from his family, would that mean he would not be considered a fit person for financial reasons? Difficulties of this sort arise the moment one tries to pin down in legislation that the person shall have financial resources in order to conduct this business. It means that the traffic commissioners have to apply themselves to this consideration more than they would previously have done. It gives an emphasis to the sort of consideration which should have been capable of being taken into account in the previous legislation.
It is perfectly reasonable to have a global view about a fit person, but the


moment one starts trying to probe into people's financial resources then the inquisitorial powers of the State are being extended quite unpardonably to private individuals.
Under the decision to extend to contract vehicle owners the fair wages provisions that exist elsewhere, the appeals are to be removed from the traffic commissioners to the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity. The right hon. Lady who is associated with giving birth to the Bill has now been gone for two months, and I was surprised to find her being embalmed in the legislation we are now considering. I am for various reasons against the suggestion that the right hon. Lady should once again burden herself with these investigations.
Licensing authorities have done this work for a very considerable period of time and have an experience of local affairs which enables them to conduct this investigation. The moment it is sought to centralise these decisions into the hands of one central Ministry, an element of delay and bureaucracy is injected which is expensive and inefficient. The possibility of quick decisions being taken is prevented, and it is quite unwarranted that the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity should wish to extend her powers in this way.
I am also worried that a reference to this new Government Department should appear in the Clause. Considering the rate at which Government Departments have come and gone under the present Government, I am concerned that a new Department, in existence for only two months, should find itself embodied permanently in legislation. What will happen if it should be decided that we do not need a Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity? We would find that there is nobody to whom the appeals are to be made. If the appeals are to be made to whoever takes over from that person, we are not capable of making a decision on what will be the effect of another Government Department inheriting the right to do what has been done perfectly satisfactorily for years by traffic commissioners.
We have the gravest anxieties. We do not believe that it was necessary to inject quality licensing into the operation of buses. If it had been, it would have been

put into the original legislation. The industry has not had time to consider this and, in the cursory investigation that they have been able to carry out to my knowledge, they have come out totally opposed to the legislation we are discussing.
One sees the desire of the State once again to pry into the fitness of a person as a result of his previous conduct, and whether or not he is financially strong. The Government take upon themselves the decision-making as to whether or not somebody who has committed a financial gaffe in the past should be banned from holding a licence in the trade in which he wishes to embark. This restricts the working of the economy in a totally unnecessary way. I am sure that my hon. Friends will join me in expressing anxieties about this hastily drafted and ill-conceived Clause.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. James Bennett: I begin by thanking my hon. Friend the Minister of State for putting down this Clause. Obviously, I derive some satisfaction from it in that I suggested a similar Clause in Standing Committee. Indeed, I am surprised that the hon. Member for Tavistock (Mr. Michael Heseltine) objects so strongly to the Clause, because my suggestion was on the Committee's Notice Paper for some time and, if his comments were true, I imagine that I would have received evidence to indicate that it is unnecessary. In the event, I received nothing.
The Clause sets out simply to provide strict regulations under which a licence will be granted to a public service vehicle operator. When one considers the regulations covering road haulage, are we now to say that we want less strict legislation for the carrying of people than we have for the carrying of freight? I cannot believe that hon. Gentlemen opposite, who are prepared to introduce tighter legislation for the carrying of freight, disregard the necessity of similar legislation for the carrying of passengers.
Listening to the arguments advanced by the hon. Member for Tavistock, I get the impression that he himself does not feel too strongly about it, but is making his observations for the strict purpose of making them. The Minister made the case for the Clause at the outset. If I


were to go on any longer, it would merely be to labour the point. It is sound, just, and should be supported by all hon. Members.

Mr. Swingler: As I anticipated, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Bridgeton (Mr. James Bennett) welcomes the Clause. In principle, we agreed with him that it would be curious, not to say irrational, in view of our concern for road safety, not to apply quality licensing to passenger vehicles.
The hon. Member for Tavistock (Mr. Michael Heseltine) raised a number of points which were a repetition of the criticisms of the criteria laid down for the quality licensing of goods vehicles. For example, he referred to the necessity for the traffic commissioners to consider the financial resources and past record of an applicant. These criteria are laid down in relation to the business of a person as an operator of vehicles. We are concerned with those here. In all the elaboration of the criteria, there are the matters which we know that the traffic commissioners have in mind in carrying out any investigations which may be required.
The hon. Gentleman asked me about consultations. In Committee, I undertook to have consultations and, naturally, we have had consultations on the new Clause on a wide scale. Incidentally, if I were to be asked to elaborate on all the consultations held on all the points raised in Standing Committee, I might occupy too much of the time of the House. However, as anticipated, the associations concerned were critical about this point in that they regarded the provisions as unnecessary. However, it would not be true to interpret that as meaning that they were opposed to them. On past experience of the passenger service vehicle licensing system, they thought that it was not necessary to make these provisions or to extend the application of the "fair wages clause".
The traffic commissioners welcomed the clarification in the Clause in that it sets out details of how the fitness of a person as a public service vehicle operator is to be judged and gives an indication of the lines on which the traffic commissioners proceed. Our

general experience is that the commissioners exercise their discretion wisely when considering these matters.
As for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity, Section 152 of the Road Traffic Act, 1960, the "fair wages clause", has relevance to her. In providing that the trade unions may make a complaint to the traffic commissioners about violations of the "fair wages clause", it says:
… if the matter in dispute is not otherwise disposed of, it shall be referred by the Minister of Labour to the Industrial Court for settlement.
In other words, the Minister of Labour is already referred to in that Section of the 1960 Act.
If the traffic commissioners were not able to dispose of the matter, it was their statutory obligation to refer it to the Minister of Labour, and he, in turn, had the statutory obligation to refer it to the Industrial Court for settlement, if there was an allegation of violation of the "fair wages clause" which could not be disposed of otherwise. In the present case, the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity has stepped into the shoes of the Minister of Labour and, therefore, we have to provide for her in the Clause.
As for the whole question of the application of the "fair wages clause", we consider that, as the Road Traffic Act, 1960 recognises, it is appropriately a matter for the Minister concerned with labour. The matter arises because the trade unions can make complaints about public service vehicle operators, and it would seem to facilitate the whole process that complaints should be laid directly with the responsible Minister, who should refer them to the Industrial Court, which is the proper body to decide any dispute about the operation of the "fair wages clause".
I hope that that explains the nature of our application of Section 152 of the 1960 Act to this provision. It is merely a short circuiting of the processes of appeal that we have used for the settlement of any matters in dispute by the Industrial Court.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Can the Minister explain the remarkable omission of any reference to the district councils in Scotland,


when we have representations allowed from the county districts in England? In Scotland, a district council can cover a wide area and a very large number of people. It seems strange that they should be omitted from those who may make representations of this sort. I hope that the Minister will deal with that point before he concludes his remarks.

Mr. Swingler: I thought that this was a point which we had dealt with previously in Committee, but I will go into it further.
I give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that we want to provide the same rights for local authorities everywhere. If there has been an omission, it will be repaired, but we have tried to follow the allocation of rights and responsibilities as provided for in other sections of the licensing system, where the local authorities may make representations. I will check on whether we have defined the correct local authorities for Scotland. If we have not, and if the hon. Gentleman is correct in what he says, we will see that the provision is amended.

Mr. Peter Walker: I do not wish to delay the House, as we have 23 new Clauses to get through in about two and a half hours, but I do not think that the Minister has argued adequately against the fundamental point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Tavistock (Mr. Michael Heseltine) that there were no representations for a provision of this sort to be included in the Bill during all the time that the Government were publishing White Papers. They must have had very close consultations with the traffic commissioners who,

Division No. 169.]
AYES
[4.40 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Blenkinsop, Arthur
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Chapman, Donald


Alldritt, Walter
Booth, Albert
Coe, Denis


Allen, Scholefield
Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Coleman, Donald


Anderson, Donald
Boyden, James
Concannon, J. D.


Archer, Peter
Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Conlan, Bernard


Armstrong, Ernest
Bradley, Tom
Corbet, Mrs. Freda


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Brooks, Edwin
Crawshaw, Richard


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Cronin, John


Barnes, Michael
Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony


Barnett, Joel
Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard


Baxter, William
Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W)
Cullen, Mrs. Alice


Bence, Cyril
Brown, R. W. ((Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Dalyell, Tam


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Buchan, Norman
Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)


Bidwell, Sydney
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Davies, Harold (Leek)


Blackburn, F.
Carmichael, Neil
Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)

as far as I know, never at any stage suggested that it was needed—

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: I do not know whether the hon. Member has studied the annual reports of the traffic commissioners for 1966 and 1967. In the case of the Northern Traffic Authority, referring to this very point, the commissioners say in paragraph 25, that
… the situation still obtains and the problem is becoming increasingly more acute, and a continuation of this state of affairs could have serious effects.

Mr. Walker: With respect, to quote one phrase out of context—

Mr. Huckfield: Mr. Huckfield rose—

Mr. Walker: I do not accuse the hon. Gentleman of doing it deliberately, but in none of the reports from the various divisions has there been any urging that action should be taken along these lines. The industry has made it clear to the Minister in an open letter that it does not consider that these provisions are needed.
We are aware that the system of licensing of passenger vehicles is different from that applied to commercial vehicles, and I think that both sides of the House agree that we need quality licensing for commercial vehicles. However, many of the matters brought out by my hon. Friend point to a Measure such as this being hastily drafted at the end of the Bill's Committee stage. They are matters which require further consideration before such a system is adopted. On those grounds, I would urge my hon. Friends to divide the House on the Clause.

Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time: —

The House divided: Ayes 282, Noes 232.

Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Pavitt, Laurence


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-HuIl W.)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Delargy, Hugh
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Dell, Edmund
Jones, Rt. Hn. SirElwyn (W.Ham,S.)
Pentland, Norman


Dempsey, James
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Perry, Ernest C. (Battersea, S.)


Dewar, Donald
Judd, Frank
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)



Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Kelley, Richard
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.


Dickens, James
Kenyon, Clifford
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)


Dobson, Ray
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Probert, Arthur


Doig, Peter
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Randall, Harry


Driberg, Tom
Lawson, George
Rankin, John


Dunn, James A.
Leadbitter, Ted
Rees, Merlyn


Dunnett, Jack
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Reynolds, G. W.


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Lestor, Miss Joan
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Richard, Ivor


Eadie, Alex
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Lipton, Marcus
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)


Ellis, John
Lomas, Kenneth
Robertson, John (Paisley)


English, Michael
Loughlin, Charles
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St.P'c'as)


Ennals, David
Luard, Evan
Robinson, W. O. J. (Waith'stow, E.)


Ensor, David
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Roebuck, Roy



Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
McBride, Neil
Rose, Paul


Fernyhough, E.
McCann, John
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
MacColl, James
Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
MacDermot, Niall
Ryan, John


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Macdonald, A. H.
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Foley, Maurice
McGuire, Michael
Sheldon, Robert


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Mckay, Mrs. Margaret
Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.


Ford, Ben
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Forrester, John
Mackintosh, John P.
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Fowler, Gerry
Maclennan, Robert
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Fraser, John (Norwood)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Slater, Joseph


Freeson, Reginald
MacPherson, Malcolm
Small, William


Galpern, Sir Myer
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Spriggs, Leslie


Gardner, Tony
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael


Garrett, W. E.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Stonehouse, John


Ginsburg, David




Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfieid, E.)
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Gregory, Arnold
Manuel, Archie
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Grey, Charles (Durham)
Mapp, Charles
Swain, Thomas


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Marks, Kenneth
Swingler, Stephen


Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
Marquand, David
Symonds, J. B.


Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Taverne, Dick


Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Mayhew, Christopher
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George


Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Thornton, Ernest


Hamling, William
Menderson, J. J.
Tinn, James


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mikardo, Ian
Tomney, Frank


Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Miller Dr. M. S.
Urwin, T. W.


Haseldine, Norman
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Varley, Eric G.


Hattersley, Roy
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Hazell, Bert
Molloy, Willia
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Heffer, Eric S.
Moonman, Eric
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Henig, Stanley
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Wallace, George


Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Watkins, David (Consett)


Hooley, Frank
Morris, Charles R. (Opensharn)
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Morris, John (Aberavon)
Weitzman, David


Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Moyle, Roland
Wellbeloved, James


Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Murray, Albert
Whitaker, Ben


Howie, W.
Neal, Harold
White, Mrs. Eirene





Whitlock, William


Hoy, James
Newerns, Stan
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Huckfield, Leslie
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip(Derby,S.)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Oakes, Gordon
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Ogden, Eric
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
O'Malley, Brian
Wills, Rt. Hn. George


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Oram, Albert E.
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Hunter, Adam
Orme, Stanley
Winnick, David


Hynd, John
Oswald, Thomas
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Owen, Will (Morpeth)
Woof, Robert


Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
Wyatt, Woodrow


Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Paget, R. T.
Yates, Victor


Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Palmer, Arthur



Jeger, George (Goole)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Jeger,Mrs. Lena (H'b'n&amp;St.P'cras,S.)
Park, Trevor
Mr. Harry Gourlay and


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Mr. Joseph Harper.


Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)





NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Awdry, Daniel
Batsford, Brian


Astor, John
Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton







Bell, Ronald
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Onslow, Cranley


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. &amp; Fhm)
Gurden, Harold
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian


Bessell, Peter
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Biffen, John
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Biggs-Davison, John
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Pardoe, John


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)


Black, Sir Cyril
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Peel, John


Blaker, Peter
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Peyton, John


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Hawkins, Paul
Pike, Miss Mevyn


Body, Richard
Hay, John
Pink, R. Bonner


Bossom, Sir Clive
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Pounder, Rafton


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Heseltine, Michael
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Braine, Bernard
Higgins, Terence L.
Prior, J. M. L.


Brewis, John
Hiley, Joseph
Pym, Fancis


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Hill, J. E. B.
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. SirWalter
Hirst, Geoffrey
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Holland, Philip
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Bryan, Paul
Hordern, Peter
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus,N&amp;M)
Hornby, Richard
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Bullus, Sir Eric
Howell, David (Guildford)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Burden, F. A.
Hunt, John
Ridsdale, Julian


Campbell, Gordon
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Carlisle, Mark
Iremonger, T. L.
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Cary, Sir Robert
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Royle, Anthony


Channon, H. P. G.
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Russell, Sir Ronald


Chichester-Clark, R.
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Clark, Henry
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Scott, Nicholas


Clegg, Walter
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Scott-Hopkins, James


Cooke, Robert
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Sharples, Richard


Corfield, F. V.
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Costain, A. P.
Kershaw, Anthony
Sinclair, Sir George


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Kimball, Marcus
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Sir Oliver
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)


Crouch, David
Kirk, Peter
Speed, Keith


Crowder, F. P.
Kitson, Timothy
Stainton, Keith


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Lambton, Viscount
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Currie, G. B. H.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Stodart, Anthony


Dalkeith, Earl of
Lane, David
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)


Dance, Jamas
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Tapsell, Peter


Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire,W.)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)
Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)


Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Temple, John M.


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Longden, Gilbert
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Lubbock, Eric
Tilney, John


Doughty, Charles
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
MacArthur, Ian
Van Straubenzee, W. R.


Drayson, G. B.
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain
Vickers, Dame Joan


Eden, Sir John
McMaster, Stanley
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Macmillian, Maurice (Farnham)
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Maddan, Martin
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Emery, Peter
Maginnis, John E.
Wall, Patrick


Eyre, Reginald
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Walters, Dennis


Farr, John

Webster, David


Fisher, Nigel
Marten, Neil
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Maude, Angus
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Forteseue, Tim
Mawby, Ray
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Foster, Sir John
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh(St'fford &amp; Stone)
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Gibson-Watt, David
Miscampbell, Norman
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Glimour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Monro, Hector
Woodnutt, Mark


Glyn, Sir Richard
Montgomery, Fergus
Worsley, Marcus


Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Wright, Esmond


Goodhart, Philip
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Wylie N. R.


Goodhew, Victor
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Younger, Hn. George


Cower, Raymond
Murton, Oscar



Grant, Anthony
Neave, Airey
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Gresham Cooke, R.
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Mr. Jasper More and


Grieve, Percy
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Mr. Bernard Weatherill.

Clause added to the Bill.

New Clause 2

POWERS OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES TO RUN CONTRACT CARRIAGE

(1) Every local authority who, under powers conferred by subsection (1) of section 101 of the Road Traffic Act 1930 or by any local Act or order, are running public service vehicles may run any of those vehicles as a contract carriage on any road within their district; and on the coming into force of this subsection the provisions of subsection (2)(a) of the said section 101 and of any local Act or order, so far as those provisions relate to the running by any local authority of a public service vehicle as a contract carriage on roads within their district, shall cease to have effect.
(2) Any such local authority as aforesaid may resolve that this subsection shall apply to them; and, subject to subsection (3) of this section, on the passing of such a resolution—

(a) the authority may run a public service vehicle as a contract carriage—

(i) between places within and places out side their district; and
(ii) so far as the authority consider requisite in connection with the exercise of their powers to run public service vehicles within, to or from their district, between places outside their district; and

(b) the provisions of the said subsection (2)(a) and of any local Act or order, so far as those provisions relate to the running by that authority of a public service vehicle as a contract carriage on roads outside their district, shall cease to have effect.

(3) Paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (2) of this section shall not apply to a local authority who have passed a resolution under that subsection—

(a) until the expiration of a period of three months after the authority have—

(i) given notice in writing to the Minister that they propose to pass or have passed that resolution; and
(ii) sent to the Minister with that notice a statement in writing of the extent to which they have made or propose to make agreements for the co-ordination of bus services within, to and from their district with any other person for the time being providing such services; or

(b) if before the expiration of that period the authority have received from the Minister a notice under subsection (4) of this section, until that notice has been withdrawn by the Minister.

(4) If after considering the statement sent to him by a local authority in pursuance of paragraph (a)(ii) of subsection (3) of this section, the Minister is not satisfied with the degree of co-ordination of the bus services provided or proposed to be provided within, to and from that authority's district by that authority and all or any of the other persons for the time being providing such services, the Minister may before the expiration of the period referred to

in paragraph (a) of that subsection give notice in writing to the authority that he is not so satisfied; but the Minister may at any time, whether in consequence of a further statement by the authority such as is mentioned in the said paragraph (a)(ii) or otherwise, inform the authority in writing that he withdraws that notice.
(5) Subject to subsection (6) of this section, every local authority to whom subsection (1) of this section applies shall make to the Minister as respects each accounting period of the authority a report of all activities carried on by the authority by virtue of subsection (1) or (2) of this section which shall include a statement of—

(a) the amount as determined by the authority of the turnover of the authority's transport undertaking for that period in respect of those activities;
(b) the extent or approximate extent (expressed in either case in monetary terms) to which, as so determined, the carrying on of those activities contributed to or restricted the surplus or deficit of that undertaking for that period;
(c) the method by which any determination for the purposes of paragraph (a) or (b) of this subsection was arrived at; and
(d) such further information, if any, relating to the carrying on by the authority of those activities as the Minister may from time to time direct;

and if it appears at any time to the Minister that, having regard to all the circumstances appearing to the Minister to be relevant, the charges made for the contract carriage services by means of public service vehicles run by the authority are unduly low in comparison with the cost of providing them, the Minister shall, after consultation with the authority, either direct the authority to make such modifications in their method of carrying on those activities as may be specified in the direction or direct the authority to discontinue those activities.


(6) Where, apart from this subsection, the first report of a local authority under subsection (5) of this section would be with respect to activities carried on for part only of an accounting period of the authority, that first report shall be made jointly as respects that part of that period and the next accounting period of the authority.
(7) In any legal proceedings, a document purporting to be a certificate given by or on behalf of the Minister that such a notice and statement as are mentioned in paragraph (a) of subsection (3) of this section were received by the Minister from a specified local authority on a specified date and that the Minister did not before the expiration of the period referred to in that paragraph serve a notice on that authority under subsection (4) of this section shall be evidence, and in Scotland sufficient evidence, of the matters appearing from that document.
(8) In the application of this section to a local authority in Scotland or Wales, references therein to the Minister shall be construed as references to the Secretary of State.


(9) In this section, the expressions 'local authority' and 'district' have the same meanings, respectively, as in Part V of the Road Traffic Act 1930 and the expression 'contract carriage' the same meaning as for the purposes of the Act of 1960; and any reference to the said Part V in any of the following provisions, namely—

(a) sections 103, 104, 106 and 107 of the said Act of 1930;
(b) the definition of 'sanctioning authority' in section 218 of the Local Government Act 1933;
(c) section 259(1)(b) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1947,

shall include a reference to this section.— [Mr. Swingler.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Swingler: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
This new Clause, like the first new one, and like the overwhelming majority of Government new Clauses and Amendments, has been tabled in response to back bench opinions expressed in Committee. It results from representations made on Clause 31 by my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) when he tabled Amendments designed to remove restrictions in local legislation on the powers of local authorities to run contract carriages.
The Clause provides general powers for local authorities who operate public service vehicles to run them as contract carriages inside their own districts. It also provides that local authorities may assume general powers to run contract carriages outside their districts, provided they first satisfy the Minister as to their general policy of co-ordination with neighbouring authorities. These powers are very much on a par with those in some other Clauses of the Bill dealing with passenger transport authorities and executives, and are designed to prevent unfair competition by local authorities in respect of contract carriage.
Such powers as local authorities have to run contract services derive wholly from local Acts, and they are usually fairly restrictive in their nature, though there is a good deal of variation between one local authority and another. The Clause provides that a local authority which operates public service vehicles will have power to operate contract carriages—and these words are important— within its district, to and from its district, and, so far as the authority con-

siders it requisite in connection with the exercise of its powers as a public service vehicle operator, between places outside its district.
Because contract carriage operation, unlike stage and express services, is not subject to road service licensing by the traffic commissioners, the exercise of these powers is made subject to the control of the Minister of Transport, and is, therefore, similar to the provision in relation to passenger transport executives. This provides for reports on the contract carriage business to be made to the Minister who has power to direct the authority to modify or discontinue the business, according to certain criteria.
Having considered representations made by hon. Members, and after consultation with the associations in the trade, who naturally expressed a variety of views about this extension of policy, and indeed about other matters of policy in the public transport field, the Government considered that it was in the public interest that local authorities should have these powers, but that it was also in the public interest to expect them, before assuming powers to operate contract carriages outside their districts, to show that their general policy in relation to their bus undertakings had regard to co-operation with the neighbouring operators. That is why the Clause provides that the local authorities are required to give the Minister not less than three months' notice of their intention to run contract carriages beyond their districts.
If the Minister is not satisfied with the evidence produced by local authorities about co-operation and co-ordination with neighbouring operators, he will have the power to serve a counter notice on the local authority. The powers for running contract carriages outside their own districts cannot be assumed by municipal operators until such time as the Minister withdraws such counter notice.
The general powers to run contract carriages wholly within a local authority's district under subsection (1) will have effect on the coming into operation of the Clause in replacement of any existing powers under local Acts. Unless and until a local authority assumes power under subsection (2) to operate to, from, and outside its area it will remain


free to operate such contract services under existing powers that it may have under local legislation. When the appropriate Resolution has been passed, local authorities will become subject to the provisions of the Clause, whereby they must give notice to the Minister. The Minister will consider the merits of the case put up by them and their relationship with their neighbouring operators. If satisfied that he should not serve a counter notice on them, he will permit them to assume these wider powers in lieu of their existing ones.
I hope that, because we want to have the maximum diversity of operation, and because of the assurance that the Minister of Transport will retain the power to see that these services are operated in a fair way and in co-operation with neighbouring authorities, the House will accept the Clause.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: I was interested to hear the Minister explain how the local authorities had power to run contract carriages. I think that he is right in saying that their powers are embodied in local Acts, but, as I understand the situation, the phraseology of those Acts is open to various interpretations.
As I understand, local authorities rely on their interpretation of local Acts to run contract carriages, to run through vehicles, or to reserve vehicles for special purposes. There are no provisions which expressly permit them to do so. One has to be very careful passing legislation, because vague phraseology can be interpreted to justify special contract hire operations.
The Clause is another example of something being added to the Bill after its consideration in Committee. The industry was not consulted about it until the end of April, and yet now, within four weeks, we are expected to accept it. It is extraordinary that this legislation is being pushed through in this way. I should have liked a more specific explanation—and perhaps the Minister will rectify the omission when he replies —about whether the interpretation put by the municipal transport association— which wrote to his Ministry on 9th May —on local legislation is correct, and whether, if this had ever been tested by

the courts, it would not be open to question whether these powers exist.
5.0 p.m.
Even if the power did exist for a few local authorities, the House would want to be careful about extending it. The Clause gives local authorities a considerable extension of existing activities. I was not convinced by what the Minister of State said about the way they could run services outside their own areas only if they felt that it was in the exercise of their powers over public service vehicles. He was quoting from the new Clause, subsection (2)(a)(ii). He did not quote what is said in paragraph (i), because that says that the authorities have this power
between places within and places outside their district;
There is no question of that paragraph being covered by the proviso built into subsection (2)—

Mr. Swingler: The hon. Gentleman has not read far enough. He will see that subsection (2)(a)(ii) refers to this power
so far as the authority consider requisite in connection with the exercise of their powers to run public service vehicles within, to or from their district, between places outside their district;
That is on a par with exactly the same condition which we put into Clause 10, about the powers of P.T.E.s. It must be in connection with the exercise of their powers to run public service vehicles.

Mr. Heseltine: I am grateful, but whenever the Minister of State says that I should read the Bill, I remember the occasions when I have done so only to find that he was wrong. I am becoming convinced from the Clause that he is here making precisely the mistake which kept us so many nights on the Standing Committee—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—Hon. Members were involved in those nights as well and they will remember how often the Minister of State was proved wrong and how, the more indignant he became, the more wrong he usually turned out to be.
The Clause says that any authority may run a public service vehicle as a contract carriage between places within and places outside its district. From this moment on paragraph (2) becomes a special power, subsidiary to but not connected with paragraph (i) and paragraph (i) does


not place the restriction on the powers to run contract carriages which will be found in paragraph (ii). It is clear, therefore, that local authorities will be able, under this legislation—although I dare say that this was never intended by the Ministry draftsmen—to conduct themselves as contract carriage operators between places within and outside their areas, with no restrictions—

Mr. Swingler: Mr. Swingler indicated dissent.

Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but that is what the legislation says.
My anxiety is that, whereas in Standing Committee there were weeks for him to change his mind, now there are only two or three hours and I know that my hon. Friends from Scotland are anxious to move on—

Mr. Archie Manuel: Hear, hear.

Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Member is always anxious to move on to Scottish business, but never to move on from Scottish business.
Having substantiated, I hope, this power to operate contract carriages outside the area without limitation—

Mr. Harry Howarth: If I read the new Clause correctly, the two paragraphs in question are subject to subsection (3). That says that the authority must give notice in writing to the Minister of its proposals.

Mr. Heseltine: We are now moving on to the partial procedure in which the Minister will indulge on appeal and investigation. I hope that the hon. Member will be patient, because by the time that I have dealt with subsection (3) he may not be so confident of it.
It is clear from subsection (2)(a)(i) that contract carnages can be run from within to without the area without restriction. That means, first, that contract carriage, which covers excursion tours, which are a major part of the private sector, can be operated from the municipality to anywhere in the world—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I would be the first to accept that they are unlikely to go outside the confines of Europe, but the excursion tour business to Europe is substantial and tours from municipalities to the Continent and anywhere in the United

Kingdom will now be within the powers of the local authorities.
I want to be sure that this is what the Ministry is legislating to do. It is obvious that it is not intended and that the Minister of State thinks that I am wrong. If he can assure me that I am wrong, and that this will be toughened up in another place, we will be satisfied, but it is obvious that the Minister of State wanted to restrict the local authority powers, and that he believes that the legislation does that. We require an assurance that that will be done.
We will now allow local authorities to compete with outings, works buses, school buses and the excursion tour business—

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: Hear, hear.

Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Member is wildly enthusiastic about this legislation. What a tragedy it is for him that the Minister of State does not agree with him—

Mr. Swingler: I have never said that.

Mr. Heseltine: —but believes that the legislation does not do this. I believe that the hon. Member is right—

Mr. Huckfield: Mr. Huckfield rose—

Mr. Heseltine: We can now leave this point, I think, to the Minister of State's reply, since we have clearly shown the differences between our side and the other. I hope that my hon. Friends will support me if the Minister of State does not clear up this issue.
Subsection (3) provides for a series of appeals and presentations of plans to the Minister before the local authorities can do this kind of business. When I read the subsection, I despaired for the Ministry's attitude and comprehension of the business for which they were legislating. Whereas there is generally no competition in municipal transport and the traffic commissioners have so organised matters over nearly the last 40 years that that section of the industry does not compete—

Mr. Huckfield: Mr. Huckfield rose—

Mr. Heseltine: I must at least be allowed to paint the picture, however unpleasant it may be when viewed from the other side of the House.
Once one moves into excursion tours and contract carriage business, there is real competition, and the attempt to build in a set of paraphernalia such as is embodied in subsection (3), to see that there is no real competition, shows that there is no understanding of this business.
Before local authorities can indulge in contract carriage work, they must give three months notice of their intention to take advantage of the new powers. Then they must send a plan to the Minister showing how they propose to make agreements for the co-ordination of bus services in the areas in which they intend to compete. They will submit the plan, showing how they will co-ordinate services run by people whose livelihood depends upon stopping them providing the services in the first place, because they will move into areas where they will compete with the private sector. How one is to show that one is co-ordinating the private with the municipal sector, I do not understand.
Then the Minister will have time to decide what should happen and to see, under subsection (4), whether he is satisfied with the degree of proposed co-ordination. What does this mean? What is the "degree of co-ordination" which it will be mandatory for local authorities to reach before getting permission to go ahead? No doubt the Minister will sympathise with local authorities which are ambitious to extend their activities under these provisions.
Local authorities wishing to extend their activities in this way must submit a plan providing for a degree of co-ordination. There is no guidance in the Clause about that degree of co-ordination and we do not know what the Minister will reply. Is the right hon. Gentleman to advise local authorities of what a desirable degree of co-ordination is and, if not, how will local authorities co-ordinate when they are left in a vacuum?
Then the Minister has a second protection up his sleeve. He is empowered, knowing that the private sector is anxious about these provisions, to ensure that a thing called "unfair competition" does not take place—to ensure that local authorities are not allowed to fiddle their overheads and so run subsidised tours to defray, on a marginal cost basis, some

of their expenses. Local authorities will have to submit a report. No doubt the drafters of the new Clause felt content, having stated that a report must be presented, that the private sector would be protected. But will the report be audited? The local authorities, being the interested parties, will submit a report but there is nothing in this legislation to say that it must be audited.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that local authorities, many of which are Conservative-controlled, would fiddle the books?

Mr. Heseltine: Has the hon. Gentleman heard of the district auditor? What does he think he does when he examines the books? I am merely seeking an assurance.

Mr. Huckfield: Really.

Mr. Heseltine: The Government have said that the district auditor will do this, but that is not said in the Clause. Even a nod of assent from the Minister will be enough to assure me that the district auditor will examine the report.

Mr. Manuel: If the hon. Gentleman had any knowledge of local authority procedure he would know that local authorities must, whether or not they like it, submit the whole of their accounting and book-keeping to the district auditor, who is Government authorised, and that these documents are dealt with each year in the most competent fashion.

Mr. Heseltine: Of course they are. I agree that the auditing is done in a competent fashion and that the books are magnificently examined, but this report is quite different. The legislation does not say that the books sent to the Ministry must be audited accounts.

Mr. Manuel: The hon. Gentleman is moving his ground.

Mr. Heseltine: I am not moving one centimetre. I want an assurance from the Minister that the report will be subject to district audit. I am sure that he will readily give that assurance. If so, why not include it in the Clause?
Let us assume that the report is audited and that it is considered when it arrives at the Ministry of Transport. We understand that the Minister then has power to tell a local authority to make adjustments


where it is considered that the method of carrying on the business results in charges which are "unduly low." What are unduly low charges?
Even in a commercial situation there might be a range of conflicting motives which would make it impossible to define an unduly low charge. For example, one might make such charges when breaking into a new field. What does the Minister consider to be an unduly low charge? I suspect that we are moving back to the question of balancing the books and breaking even.
Leaving aside the question of local authorities using capital assets like property, and so on, where the market price does; not apply, let us assume that the challenge is to break even. In what sort of position does that leave those in the private sector, with whom the local authorities will be competing and who must make a profit? If the Minister is not prepared to say that in moving into the excursion tours business local authorities must make a commercial return, then he is threatening the death knell of the private sector, which will not be able to compete. I suppose that the private sector should be satisfied that a report will be presented and that adjustments may be made if the charges are considered to be unduly low.
5.15 p.m.
In any event, when will the report be submitted? Perhaps the business has been going on for some time and an investigation is carried out in connection with the unfair charges aspect. The Clause states that the report must cover the first year but that, where the first year includes a part of an accounting year, then that part is added to another year before the report is submitted. This means that my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) sharply grasped what this means—

Mr. Manuel: That is unusual for him.

Mr. Heseltine: —when he pointed out, from his great knowledge of commerce and accounting, that 23 months may go by in many cases before such a report is even begun to be prepared. Then it must go to the Ministry.
We are, therefore, talking about two-and-a-half years elapsing before the

Ministry hears about what is going on. By that time the present Government may not even be in power. That is the protection which this "phoney" set of precautions is supposed to give to the private sector. That is why the private sector does not believe in it, why it considers the protection to be illusory and why this concept is unworkable—not to mention the speed with which this legislation has been pushed before the House. All these things, coupled with the fact that it will be guillotined tonight, makes this exercise nothing short of indecent.

Mr. Manuel: Hon. Members who served for many months on the Measure in Standing Committee will have been surprised at the volume of criticism levied against the new Clause by the hon. Member for Tavistock (Mr. Michael Heseltine). When I spoke on this theme following representations I had received from the Municipal Passenger Transport Association hon. Gentlemen opposite were dumb.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: Mr. Michael Heseltine rose—

Mr. Manuel: Apart from a word or two from the hon. Member for Tavistock, hon. Gentlemen opposite were dumb and certainly did not show any signs of resentment.

Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman will remember vividly—I checked this at one o'clock this morning—that when he introduced an Amendment on this theme he admitted that he had not had time to do his homework on the subject, having received the information only about 24 hours earlier, that he was willing to withdraw the Amendment on the understanding that the matter would be considered on Report and that that was why I said virtually nothing at the time.

Mr. Manuel: Whatever the hon. Gentleman says, very little was said on that occasion by his hon. Friends and it is, therefore, difficult to understand why they should now show this amount of antipathy and antagonism towards local transport undertakings. They have bleeped about competition and their belief in it. Now, when local authorities —the transport undertakings of which belong to the people in the various areas —want to compete with private undertakings, hon. Gentlemen opposite sing a vastly different tune. I ask hon. Gentlemen not to be too antagonistic.
I was asked by the Municipal Passenger Transport Association to raise the question of contract carriage. That was the only communication I had from the Association until today, when I was asked to phone a certain number. It turned out to be the Association, which wanted to know what was happening to its suggested Amendment. It was a starred Amendment, but when the hon. Member for Tavistock has been here a few years longer he will know that this is common practice.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman will not be here then.

Mr. Manuel: I have come through a few battles. Certainly nobody sitting on the Front Bench could knock me out. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) was dealt with in Committee as he deserved to be; he was rendered impotent and did not count. I do not think he will count on Report or on Third Reading.
I was asked over the phone whether the suggested Amendment would be brought up on Report. I told the Association that a new Clause had been tabled. The Vice-President was very pleased about this and told me that the Association at its last meeting had not changed its mind about its objective, which is embodied in the Clause. I thank my hon. Friend the Minister of State for going so fully into the question. I thank my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport for agreeing to the Clause. I am certain that the majority of people will be proud to think that municipal undertakings will be able to do contract carriage.
Some large local authorities already have these powers under Local Acts. The hon. Member for Tavistock expressed doubt about whether the powers contained in the Private Acts were real. We need not bother our heads about that, because it will be superseded by the Clause giving members of the Municipal Transport Association full power to operate contract carriage. This is to be welcomed. Municipal undertakings in large conurbations must have large fleets to meet peak loads at meal times and between 5 p.m. and 6 p.m. At other times hundreds of buses lie idle. I believe that fair-minded people will agree that a local authority transport

undertaking which has to provide such a service should be enabled to compete on fair and reasonable terms with private operators. That is all I ask for—fair competition between private operators and municipal undertakings.

Mr. Keith Stainton: Will the hon. Gentleman explain how the excess capacity during certain hours will be costed and priced out?

Mr. Manuel: If the hon. Gentleman seeks to give credence to the innuendo put out by the hon. Member for Tavistock, I advise him to apply that microscopic eye of his to private enterprise in the same way as he is applying it to local authority undertakings. Possibly he will discover much more dirt there than he will in municipal transport.
The hon. Member for Tavistock mentioned the district auditors. I do not know who he means. I know about Government auditors. The hon. Gentleman may be confused between the district valuer and the Government auditors. He meant the Government auditor, although, through ignorance of local authority procedure, he misnamed him. The hon. Gentleman doubted whether Government auditors would do their job properly.

Mr. Harry Howarth: I do not know what the position in Scotland is, but will my hon. Friend accept it from me that we have district auditors in England?

Mr. Manuel: I do not know whether I should call that a stab in the back. However, even accepting what my hon. Friend says—that there are district auditors in another field—I still stick to my point about Government auditors. I am sure that this applies in England as it does in Scotland. I give a very warm welcome to the Clause. I am sure that the Municipal Passenger Transport Association will be delighted that we are writing it into the Bill and taking this great step forward.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) has just made a speech which in tenor was rather similar to a number which we heard from him in Committee. The hon. Gentleman can never understand why we on this side object to nationalised industries or municipali-


ties undertaking competitive business. He seems to think that there is something immoral in our objecting to that happening because we do not object to its happening with private enterprise.
The difference is that private enterprise is using its own money, whereas the municipalities and nationalised industries are using ours. If it is a very speculative business, it is important that the activities of either a nationalised industry or of a municipality should be limited and that we should ensure that they do not take undue risks with somebody else's money. If the effect of the Clause is as my hon. Friend the Member for Tavistock (Mr. Michael Heseltine) suggested, that municipalities will undertake foreign tours and such things, we are perfectly right to be cautious. That type of contract carriage work is very speculative and is highly specialised business which it is not at all desirable for a municipal bus undertaking to enter into.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that this work, as well as being speculative, is also very profitable?

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: Speculative business very often is profitable, but it is also likely to make a loss. Whereas a private enterprise concern or a limited company which must answer to its shareholders may take these risks, it is not right that such risks should be taken with rate payers' or taxpayers' money by a nationalised industry. That is the point which has been overlooked by the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Huckfield: For the last hour or so while I have been present we have had the same old argument used by the Opposition as was used day after day in Committee. The argument is that we should put as many shackles as we can on public enterprise, take all restrictions off private enterprise, and then blame public enterprise for making a loss.
It seems a great pity that when we have had these arguments from the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) and the hon. Member for Tavistock (Mr. Michael Heseltine) they did not even consult the annual report of the traffic commissioners for the country as a whole before discussing the last new

Clause. The hon. Member for Tavistock did not even bother to ask local authority representatives about their views. All that the new Clause seeks is to bring local authorities into line with the powers of passenger transport authorities and the powers which private companies already have.
As the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Geoffrey Wilson) said, this at times is highly speculative work. As I reminded him, at times it is highly profitable work. I suspect that hon. Members opposite want to keep local authorities out of this work for that very reason.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: rose—

Mr. Manuel: The hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls) does not know anything about this.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) must not make that remark, for I know a lot about making profits and losing money. Making a profit in this matter is not automatic. To imagine that when entering this kind of business one will automatically make a profit, shows the weakness of the argument. The whole of the work of local civil servants makes it absolutely inappropriate for them to take on this highly competitive business.

Mr. Huckfield: I hasten to intervene in my own speech. The experience of the hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls) in the making of profits is different from this argument.
I agree that this work is not always profitable, but, if we are to discuss profitability and the speculative nature of some of this work, we should at the same time discuss the particular safeguards which are provided in the Clause. It is impossible to discuss profitability and to say that certain sectors of the industry will be subjected to unfair competition without at the same time discussing the safeguards. All that we are doing is putting local authorities on a similar competitive basis as the private operator and the passenger transport authority of the future.
Some remarks have been made by the hon. Member for Tavistock about undervaluation of local authority property assets. Local authorities, in their transport departments, at least have


property assets. The hon. Member should look at some of the private operators. I exclude those in my constituency, for whom I have a certain amount of respect. They would not vote for me, anyway. At least, I do not brag about it. If the hon. Member looked at some of the private companies which he thinks are valuing their property assets correctly, he would ascertain whether, in the first place, they have property assets.
The kind of arguments he has put forward this afternoon, particularly those he dreamt up, show that the only reason why the Opposition want to talk this afternoon is to keep this debate going as long as possible and to prevent discussion—

Mr. Peter Walker: In this debate the Government side have spoken, if anything, longer than those on the Opposition side. It seems that it is the intention of the Government side to filibuster on this matter so that we shall not reach any of our new Clauses. Will the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield) withdraw the remark he made?

Mr. Huckfield: I remind the hon. Member that the Government side have spoken a great deal more sense.

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Mr. Huckfield: Local authorities are ideally fitted to do this kind of work because of the burden of excess capacity which they have to carry. The hon. Members for Worcester and Tavistock, who claim that they have studied this matter, ought to know that many large authorities have 50 per cent. or 60 per cent. of fleet capacity off the roads at off-peak periods. If one is to run a local authority enterprise one should make as much use as possible of that off-peak capacity. That is what this new Clause offers. The new Clause puts local authorities on a fair competitive basis. The Opposition wants to put as many shackles on them as possible.

Mr. Peter Bessell: I shall try, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to resist referring to you as the hon. Member for Nantwich (Mr. Grant-Ferris). You must forgive me if I do so, because we sat

under his chairmanship for four months, and it was a great chairmanship.
The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) illustrated with stark realism the folly of this new Clause. He told us that today the Municipal Passenger Transport Association had telephoned to him to ask what had happened to the Amendment he moved in Committee and that he was forced to tell the Association that there was a new Clause on the Notice Paper for discussion today. That illustrated the folly of introducing a Clause of this length at such a late stage when even those most affected did not know of its existence.

Mr. Swingler: I must correct that. Of course, following the raising of this matter by my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) in Committee, we had consultations with all the associations concerned and canvassed their views. I assure the House that we had conversations and canvassed the views of the appropriate associations.

Mr. Bessell: The Minister of State should clear that with his hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire. The statement which the hon. Member made very clearly was that today he was asked by the Association—

Mr. Manuel: No.

Mr. Bessell: —what happened to the Amendment he moved in Committee and he told the Association that it was now on the Notice Paper as a new Clause. If this Clause has been so thoroughly discussed with the interests involved, it seems incredible that that should have happened.

Mr. Manuel: The argument of the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell) is so much froth. I did not say "the Association". I mentioned an individual whose office I spoke to. It was that individual who did not know. I hope that hon. Member opposite will not accuse me of trying to tell an untruth.

Mr. Bessell: I did not imply that the hon. Member was trying to mislead the House. He was telling us the facts, but, as I remember them, it was the Vice-President of the Association who was not aware of this Clause. I believe that the vast majority of local authorities and of


the general public do not know about it, either.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: To put the question of consultation into perspective, I should point out that the Ministry did not write to the Public Transport Association—by far the largest state-owned association—until weeks after the discussion in Committee, not until 29th April. The Ministry did not have a reply —totally against the proposals—until 9th May, and four days later the new Clause was drafted.

Mr. Bessell: I am grateful for that information, because it helps to illustrate the point I was making. If there were no other reason for voting against this Clause, I hope that it will be our intention to do so, because it is quite wrong, at this late stage in our proceedings, for a Clause of such complexity to be introduced.
The hon. Member for Tavistock (Mr. Michael Heseltine) raised a number of questions. I agree that the question whether accounts are audited or not is probably not a significant issue here, but all hon. Members opposite will agree that that is precisely the sort of question which would be thrashed out in Committee of the Clause were debated there, as it should have been. The same applies to the question whether municipal undertakings will now be free to run services outside their own districts in the sense of running European tours as well. That is a profitable side of the business on the private sector.
I am not suggesting that municipal undertakings should not do that— I am not saying whether it would be right or wrong—but I am pointing out that it is quite wrong for the House to have to make a decision on an issue of that importance without proper consideration of the matter in Standing Committee. The Government have made a grave error in introducing a Clause of this complexity at such a late stage.
I am concerned about the powers which we are to give to some local authorities in this matter and the conflicts which may arise between those powers and the powers given to passenger transport authorities. The two are interlinked. Would a local authority, under a P.T.A., be empowered to carry on these services? Would it be em-

powered to do what is provided for in the new Clause if it came within a passenger transport area? If not, how disgraceful it would be if a local authority were deceived into believing that it would have this new power and into setting up all the complex machinery for operating it only to find a few months later, after a passenger transport area had been designated, that not only were its efforts wasted but the money it had spent had gone down the drain.

Mr. Swingler: Under the Bill as it stands a passenger transport authority will have these powers. We discussed at length in Committee whether they should have contract carriage powers and what the criteria should be. They would have these powers under the Bill as it now stands. What we are doing now, in a sense, is bringing the municipal operators into line with that.

Mr. Bessell: The Minister misunderstands me. I am not suggesting that passenger transport authorities will not have these powers. We debated the matter at length, and I know about that. I am asking about a local authority which comes under a passenger transport authority: will it retain the powers provided under the new Clause? I think that it will not. If a passenger transport area is established, the local authorities' powers under the Clause will automatically vanish. That is my interpretation. Therefore, as I say, a local authority might, in all innocence, set up the machinery implied here but be unable to operate it later.
Next, what about the difficulties which will inevitably arise in the case of a small local authority which has not previously operated a transport service? Such a local authority would be involved in considerable capital expense, which might be a serious matter for it, in entering into this kind of enterprise and operating powers which it had not previously possessed. One could continue at length to debate this matter. All I am emphasising is that this brief debate—I hope that it will be brief, as we are working strictly under a Guillotine—illustrates how wrong it is for a Minister to introduce at this late stage a Clause which is imperfectly understood by hon. Members on both sides, for the very good reason that we have not had opportunity to


debate it line by line in Standing Committee.
There are over 12,000 words in the new Clause. It is disgraceful to ask us to accept it virtually on the nod or after a debate which cannot, because of the Guillotine, continue for more than a few more minutes.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Ted Leadbitter: rose—

Hon. Members: Oh.

Mr. George Willis: Hon. Members opposite said they wanted it discussed.

Mr. Leadbitter: Hon. Members are anxious, to have the Clause discussed line by line, with great care. In Standing Committee, the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell) set a high standard in debate, but on this occasion he has made the fatal error of emulating the hon. Member for Tavistock (Mr. Michael Heseltine). He said very little about the Clause itself. His submission was more or less a complaint. He does not like the Clause, but he goes no further than that. The hon. Member for Tavistock is the man we want to get at. He is the prima donna. Not only in Committee but in this debate, too, by his fertile imagination, his elegance and his use—

Mr. Peter Walker: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. So far, the hon. Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. Leadbitter) has not said a word about the Clause. Is this not plain filibustering?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): The hon. Gentleman has only just begun his speech. I imagine that he will deal with the Clause.

Mr. Leadbitter: You have understood, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I was completing a preamble to an expression of my views about the Clause. I was deprecating that the Clause has not yet been discussed on its merits.
The argument on this important Clause has been directed to two points. First, there was the complaint—this came from the hon. Member for Tavistock—that it gave local authorities an extension of their existing powers and activities. The

second leg of the argument was a complaint about competition with private enterprise. Those were the two chief features of the Opposition's argument. For the rest, hon. Members attempted to gild the lily with questions about auditing, accountancy and co-ordination—all matters which one would expect a Member of Parliament to understand. I shall not refer to any of those frills to the argument. Reasonable people accept that the ability to account for finance in local government is a fine ability which sets a standard which private enterprise might well find worth following. Local government is fortunate in having officers of a high standard, particularly in the finance departments, officers far more competent to deal with matters such as this than was suggested by hon. Members opposite.
The hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Geoffrey Wilson) also lapsed from his exceptionally high standard of debate in the Standing Committee. He said that private enterprise uses its own money and municipalities use ours. He should know that in a mixed economy one cannot draw rigid distinction like that and expect one's listeners to accept such arguments as logical. In a large number of corporate bodies, municipalities, nationalised undertakings and other bodies such as public utilities, investment and capital programmes are concerned with a great deal of trading which covers questions—

Sir Harmar Nicholls: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You and I, if I may say so with respect, have been in the House long enough to recognise a filibuster. The hon. Gentleman is not attempting to camouflage it. May we ask, through you, which of the important new Clauses and other business on the Order Paper hon. Members opposite will avoid discussing?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. I think that we have both been in the House long enough to recognise a filibuster. It is sometimes difficult to know exactly where to draw the line. I hope that the hon. Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. Leadbitter) will bring his remarks to a reasonable conclusion as we are under a guillotine.

Mr. Leadbitter: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and—

Mr. Bessell: The hon. Gentleman has said that we on this side of the House have dropped below the high standard of debate in Committee. I appeal to him seriously and sincerely. We are under a desperate timetable. Is it reasonable for hon. Members opposite to take up time in this way? Will he please come to the point quickly?

Mr. Leadbitter: I have watched the clock with great care, and I have spoken for a shorter time than any hon. Member. Therefore, I cannot accept what the hon. Gentleman has said. We know what the inter-play is likely to be here on the Report stage, and I seek to avoid it. After my preamble I addressed myself to the specific words of the hon. Member for Truro, the hon. Member for Bodmin and the hon. Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge (Mr. Stainton). If they do not want those words counted, they should not use them, and then we should save time.
We on this side of the House welcome the Gauss because we believe that the general tests of competitiveness can be established just as efficiently between municipalities and private enterprise as between different bodies or businesses within the present private enterprise sector. A municipality has a responsibility to its ratepayers to do two things nowadays—to provide the best service for the money it is given by the ratepayers and taxpayers, and to provide the best kind of social and other services which, within its competence, are essential to the people it seeks to serve. There is nothing wrong in that.
If hon. Members opposite want to stop a tendency towards filibustering—and it is a temptation—the hon. Member for Tavistock can set the pace by being brief. But if he introduces a lot of red herrings he must not underestimate the ability of hon. Members on this side of the House to answer him.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that if, under the guillotine Motion, we discuss only the new Clauses moved from the opposite side of the House, there will be 18 minutes available for each discussion? We have been discussing this Clause for

one hour and five minutes, and most of the time has now been wasted by the hon. Member for The Hartlepools.

Mr. Leadbitter: Will the hon. Member for Tavistock realise that one can address oneself to the details of the Clause competently? I will not take instructions from the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Gentleman should understand that one of the rules in the House is that if other hon. Members want the hon. Member who is speaking to continue to stay on his feet, they should intervene.
The House has not done itself a service either in Standing Committee or here. After 210 hours upstairs and 3½ days here, the very essence of the new Clauses will be lost to us in debate if we pursue the kind of red herrings the hon. Gentleman introduced. The House can make for itself a new standard in this first hour and a half—

Mr. Peter Walker: The hon. Gentleman has made repetition after repetition that has nothing to do with the Clause. This is obviously a deliberate filibuster on his part.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that there is a certain amount of blame on both sides of the House. Hon. Members have been accused of filibustering, and I hope that we can devote ourselves to the merits of the new Clause.

Mr. Leadbitter: The pace must be set. I have watched the clock since the debate started—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I shall not tolerate any more discussion about the merits or demerits of the guillotine. We must now the discuss the merits or demerits of the Clause.

Mr. Leadbitter: I am discussing the merits of the Clause within a period of time. I want the time for discussion of it to be put to the best use. It does not serve the best interests—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not pursue that line of reasoning on this debate. He, must address himself to the merits of the new Clause and nothing else.

Mr. Manuel: My hon. Friend's references are exactly similar to those made by the hon. Member for Tavistock


(Mr. Michael Heseltine), the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker), and at greater length, the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell), who did not discuss the Clause at all but spoke only about the lack of time to discuss it. If that was allowed, I do not think that my hon. Friend should be ruled out of order.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has replied to that point. We have had enough discussion of that, and I must now ask the hon. Gentleman to deal with the Clause.

Mr. Leadbitter: We on this side of the House are anxious to extend the activities and freedom of local government, and the Clause does just that as regards transport undertakings. The hon. Member for Bodmin and other hon. Members opposite fell into the trap time and time again of saying that they wanted to give local transport authorities more power. We resent the party opposite making a public claim to want to give local authorities more powers and freedom and then seeking to restrict them when it comes to legislation. That is our objection, and that is why hon. Members on this side of the House support the Clause.

Mr. Peter Doig: I welcome the new Clause. I have always understood that the purpose of the Committee stage was to allow back benchers and the Opposition to put suggestions to the Government which they would consider and, where desirable, incorporate at the relevant stage. That is exactly what has happened over the Clause, which rectifies a situation which was pointed out in Committee.
The Clause says:
(a) the authority may run a public service vehicle as a contract carriage—

(i) between places within and places outside their district; and
(ii) so far as the authority consider requisite in connection with the exercise of their powers to run public service vehicles within, to or from their district, between places outside their district;


It is the last phrase—"between places outside their district"—which has caused all the argument by hon. Members opposite.
Let me give an example of what can happen under existing legislation without

the new Clause. Let us take the example of a large city with three villages nearby. Supposing there is a dance in village No. 3 and the city local authority puts on a special bus to take people home at the end of it. Under existing legislation, it cannot take anyone home from village No. 3 to village No. 2 or village No. 1. It can only carry people from village No. 3 to the city.
6.0 p.m.
There is, therefore, a need, as was pointed out in Standing Committee, to change the law in order to give local authorities power to make sensible use of this sort of service. It will mean that a bus laid on for such a purpose will be able to take people back to their village, if that is where they live, instead of having to drive straight back into the city.
This is surely a sensible arrangement and I am surprised by the attitude of the Opposition. They have spoken against the Clause but not one has given a reason for his objections. They have all merely made general, sweeping statements about extending powers to local authorities and running subsidised tours to Europe and unduly low charges.
The primary function of a local authority transport undertaking is to fulfil the need at peak periods and obviously it must try to find a use for its buses at off-peak periods. That is what the Clause gives the local authorities power to do. I am surprised by the attitude of hon. Members opposite. If the purpose of a Standing Committee is to persuade the Government that there are Clauses in a Bill which need to be rectified, and the Government listen to the Committee and rectify those Clauses on Report stage, why object when they carry out the change? I welcome this new Clause.

Mr. Swingler: I sympathise strongly with my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Doig). It is an extraordinary situation. The hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell) played a prominent part in Committee. Is it his view that, when a matter has been raised by back benchers in Committee, and the Government have given an assurance on it, the Government should then do nothing about it on Report stage? This new Clause was produced through the initiative taken by back benchers in Committee. That is why it is before us


now. That applies to a whole series of other new Clauses and Amendments.

Mr. Bessell: The point I was making is that it is not that I object to the Government taking up points raised in Committee but that I object to the size and length and complexity of new Clause 2. Because of its length, size and complexity, it should have been dealt with upstairs or made a separate piece of legislation.

Mr. Swingler: But this matter has been under discussion for years. All those connected with municipal transport know that to be so. I do not mind the hon. Member for Tavistock (Mr. Michael Heseltine) making malicious attacks on me—I am used to that—but I resent his vicious and violent attacks on municipal bus operators. In Committee, he presented himself as an apostle of local government powers. What gross hypocrisy! First he implies that local authority bus operators are carrying on unlawful activities. Why, therefore, have they not been challenged in court?
The hon. Gentleman then says that bus operators are carrying out some contract carriage services now. Certainly it is the case that some municipal authorities have reserve power to do so. But why have not those people who think that municipal operators are breathing down their necks challenged their activities? Such activities have been going on for years, quite legally, in areas represented by hon. Members opposite, but they themselves have never challenged them. They have never claimed that these activities were unlawful.
Our aim here is to see that all municipal bus operators should have the chance to do what many of them have been doing for years through local Acts or reserve powers. We have built in some additional safeguards. The hon. Member for Tavistock decried them as bureaucracy and red tape. He even implied that local government bus operators do not have their accounts audited.
We disregard that kind of innuendo because it is so absurd. The judgment which hon. Members will make will be on the basis of their attitude to the virtues and merits of municipal bus operators. The implication of the speech of the hon. Member for Tavistock is that bus transport is nothing but jungle warfare. I must

say that, in some parts of bus transport, there is something like jungle warfare, but we want to bring about co-ordination and co-operation between the different kinds of operators—State-owned, local government, and privately owned. That is the essence of our policy. All these implications about cut-throat competition, subsidies, etc., are designed to sow the seeds of maximum suspicion between the different kinds of operators in bus transport so as to make more difficult the kind of co-operation and co-ordination which we want to bring about.
I do not believe that bus operators in general object to our proposal. State and private operators have been living for years side by side with municipal bus operators who have been exercising contract carriage rights. Why have the Opposition raised such violent and vicious allegations? Such work has been going on a long time, and all we propose to do is to extend the power to carry out such services to all municipal undertakings.
But we also provide that, where an undertaking runs a contract service outside its boundaries, there should be safeguarding provisions. The local authority must apply for the Minister's permission and he will have power to object if it is carrying on cut-throat competition. This is the safeguard of the private operators and of the National Bus Company, in which the State will have a big stake. If hon. Members opposite insist on dividing upon this, it will be judgment on the trust which they have in municipal bus operators and in the contribution which these are able to make to the provision of an efficient public transport service.

Mr. Peter Walker: The Minister of State's speech was only equalled in irresponsibility by some of those from his own back benchers. I shall certainly see that the record of the debate obtains the widest possible circulation. The Government allow three and a half hours for 23 Clauses to be discussed and then spend one hour twenty minutes of the time on one Clause, propped up by filibustering speeches from their own backbenchers.

Mr. Manuel: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman has not referred to the new Clause, yet you have not pulled him up. Two of my hon. Friends were pulled up by you for


that offence. I hope you will convey the same advice to the hon. Member.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It would be better if we confined this discussion to the merits or demerits of the new Clause.

Mr. Peter Walker: We will see that the widest circulation is given to the manner in which this debate has been conducted by the Government.
As to the arguments, first of all there was no attack or criticism by my hon. Friend the Member for Tavistock (Mr. Michael Heseltine) on municipal bus undertakings, and the record will show that quite clearly. As to the point of order, the Minister of State, as is so frequently the case, showed that he did not understand the point, by saying that there was a suggestion that the accounts would not be properly audited. The suggestion of my hon. Friend, to which the Minister failed to reply, was the point about whether the report going to the Minister would have the support of and be validated by the auditor. We have not had a reply. Can the Minister of State give us the reply? Can we have a reply from the Minister of State?
There is no reply from the Minister, because he knows full well that these reports will not be validated by the auditor concerned. This is the point. Therefore, the figures concerned will be figures representing the views of a particular council. [Interruption.] As the hon. Gentleman will know from his experience in these matters, even a report has

Division No. 170.]
AYES
[6.15 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Boyden, James
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard


Albu, Austen
Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Cullen, Mrs. Alice


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Bradley, Tom
Dalyell, Tam


Alldritt, Walter
Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)


Allen, Scholefield
Brooks, Edwin
Davies, C. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)


Anderson, Donald
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)


Archer, Peter
Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Davies, Harold (Leek)


Armstrong, Ernest
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Davies, Ifor (Gower)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Brown, Bob(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Buchan, Norman
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Delargy, Hugh


Barnes, Michael
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Dell, Edmund


Barnett, Joel
Carmichael, Neil
Dempsey, James


Baxter, William
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Dewar, Donald



Bence, Cyril
Chapman, Donald
Diamond, Rt. Hn. John


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Coe, Denis
Dickens, James


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Coleman, Donald
Dobson, Ray


Bidwell, Sydney
Concannon, J. D.
Doig, Peter


Binns, John
Conlan, Bernard
Driberg, Tom


Blackburn, F.
Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Dunn, James A.


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Dunnett, Jack


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Crawshaw, Richard
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)


Booth, Albert
Cronin, John
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Eadie, Alex

to be validated by an auditor. Very frequently a point will be raised by the auditor, which the parties concerned had brought up previously.

Mr. John Hynd: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that a local authority is required by Act of Parliament to send a report on these matters to the Minister after the accounts have been audited. If he is suggesting that they will not be correct figures, he is suggesting that the councils will be "cooking" them.

Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman does not understand. He has not read the new Clause. We are not talking about accounts going out, but about a report suggesting the viability of a particular operation. These will not carry the auditor's remarks.
The Minister did not comment upon the possibility of a 23-month delay as a result of the wording in this new Clause. This is a piece of legislation being tacked on to the end of the Bill, without proper disscussions. This is illustrated by the fact that back benchers opposite wanted about eight times as much time as the Government had allocated. In view of this badly-worded, badly-drafted piece of legislation, I urge my hon. and right hon. Friends to divide the House.

Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time: —

The House divided: Ayes 273, Noes 238.

Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Lestor, Miss Joan
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.


Ellis, John
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)


English, Michael
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Probert, Arthur


Ensor, David
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Randall, Harry


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Lipton, Marcus
Rankin, John


Evans, Ioan L. (Birm.'h'm, Yardley)
Lomas, Kenneth
Rees, Merlyn


Faulds, Andrew
Loughlin, Charles
Reynolds, C. W.


Fernyhough, E.
Luard, Evan
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Fletcher, Raymond (likeston)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Richard, Ivor


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Foley, Maurice
McBride, Neil
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
McCann, John
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)


Ford, Ben
MacColl, James
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Forrester, John
MacDermot, Niall
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St.P'c'as)


Fowler, Gerry
Macdonald, A. H.
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow.E.)


Fraser, John (Norwood)
McGuire, Michael
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Freeson, Reginald
McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Roebuck, Roy


Gardner, Tony
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Rose, Paul


Garrett, W. E.
Mackintosh, John P.
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Ginsburg, David
Maclennan, Robert
Ryan, John


Gourlay, Harry
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
MacPherson, Malcolm
Sheldon, Robert


Gregory, Arnold
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.


Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.
Mallalieu, J. P. W.(Huddersfield, E.)
Slater, Joseph


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Manuel, Archie
Small, William


Hamling, William
Mapp, Charles
Spriggs, Leslie


Harper, Joseph




Harrson, Walter (Wakefield)
Marks, Kenneth
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael


Hart, Rt. Hn.Judith
Marquand, David
Stonehouse, John


Haseldine, Norman
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Hattersley, Roy
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Hazell, Bert
Maxwell, Robert
Swingler, Stephen


Heffer, Eric S.
Mayhew, Christopher
Symonds, J. B.


Henig, Stanley
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Taverne, Dick


Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)
Mendelson, J. J. 
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George


Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Millan, Bruce
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George


Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough) 
Miller, Dr. M. S. 
Thronton, Ernest


Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.) 
Milne, Edward (Blyth) 
Tinn, James


Hoy, James
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Tomney, Frank


Huckfield, Leslie
Molloy, William
Urwin, T. W.


Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Moonman, Eric
Varley, Eric G.


Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Morris, John, (Aberavon)
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Moyle, Roland
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Hunter, Adam
Murray, Albert
Wallace, George


Hynd, John
Neal, Harold
Watkings, David (Consett)


Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Newens, Stan
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp;Radnor)




Weitzman, David


Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Phillp (Derby, S.)
Wellbeloved, James


Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Oakes, Gordon
Whitaker, Ben


Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n&amp;St.P'cras, S.)
Ogden, Eric
White, Mrs, Eirene


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
O'Malley, Brian
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Orme, Stanley
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Oswald, Thomas
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull W.)
Owen, Will (Morpeth)
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W.Ham, S.)
Paget, R. T.
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Palmer, Arthur
Winnick David


Judd, Frank
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Kelley, Richard
Park, Trevor
Woof, Robert


Kenyon, Clifford
Parher, John (Dagenham)
Wyatt, Woodrow


Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Yates, Victor


Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Pavitt, Laurence



Lawson, George
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:



Leadbitter, Ted
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Mr. Charles Grey and


Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Pentland, Norman
Mr. Alan Fitch.


Lee, John (Reading)
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)





NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Bessell, Peter
Brinton, Sir Tatton


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Biffen, John
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col.Sir Walter


Astor, John
Biggs-Davison, John
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Bruce-Gardyne, J.


Awdry, Daniel
Black, Sir Cyril
Bryan, Paul


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Blaker, Peter
Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&amp;M)


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Bullus, Sir Eric


Batsford, Brian
Body, Richard
Burden, F. A.


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Campbell, Gordon


Bell, Ronald
Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Carlisle, Mark


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. &amp; Fhm)
Braine, Bernard
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert


Berry Hn. Anthony
Brewis, John
Cary, Sir Robert







Channon, H. P. G.
Holland, Philip
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hooson, Emlyn
Pink, R. Bonner


Clark, Henry
Hordern, Peter
Pounder, Rafton


Clegg, Walter
Hornby, Richard
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Cooke, Robert
Howell, David (Guildford)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Corfield, F. V.
Hunt, John
Prior, J. M. L.


Costain, A. P.
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Pym, Francis


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Iremonger, T. L.
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Sir Oliver
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Crouch, David
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Crowder, F. P.
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Currie, G. B. H.
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Dalkeith, Earl of
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Dance, James
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Ridsdale, Julian


Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Kershaw, Anthony
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
Kimball, Marcus
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Royle, Anthony


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Kirk, Peter
Russell, Sir Ronald


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Lambton, Viscount
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Doughty, Charles
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.


Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Lane, David
Scott, Nicholas


Drayson, G. B.
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Scott-Hopkins, James


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Sharpies, Richard


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC' dfield)
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Silvester, Frederick


Emery, Peter
Lloyd Rt. Hn. Selwyn (wirra|)
Sinclair, Sir George


Errington, Sir Eric
Longden, Gilbert
Smith, Dudley (W' wick &amp; L'mington)


Errington, Sir Eric
Lubbock, Eric
Smith, John (London &amp; W' minster)


Farr, John
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Speed, Keith


Fisher, Nigel
MacArthur, Ian
Stainton, Keith


Fletcher, Cooke, Charles
Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross &amp; Crom'rty)
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Fortescue, Tim
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Stodart, Anthony


Foster, Sir John
Macleod, Rt. Hn. lain
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)


Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
McMaster, Stanley
Tapsell, Peter


Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Gibson-Watt, David
Maddan, Martin

Taylor, Edward M. (G' gow, Cathcart)


Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan
Maginnis, John E.
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Glyn, Sir Richard
Marten, Neil
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Maude, Angus
Tilney, John


Goodhart, Philip
Mawby, Ray
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Goodhew, Victor
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Gower, Raymond
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Grant, Anthony
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Vickers, Dame Joan


Grant-Ferris, R.
Miscampbell, Norman
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Gresham Cooke, R.
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Grieve, Percy
Monro, Hector
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Montgomery, Fergus
Walters, Dennis


Gurden, Harold
More, Jasper
Webster David


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Murton, Oscar
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Neave, Airey
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Harvie Anderson, Miss
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Hawkins, Paul
Onslow, Cranley
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Hay, John
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Woodnutt, Mark


Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian
Worsley, Marcus


Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Wright, Esmond


Heseltine, Michael
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Wylie, N. R.


Higgins, Terence L.
Pardoe, John
Younger, Hn. George



Hiley, Joseph
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)



Hill, J. E. B.
Peel, John
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hirst, Geoffrey
Percival, Ian
Mr. Timothy Kitson and


Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Peyton, John
 Mr. Bernard Weatherill.

Clause added to the Bill.

New Clause No. 3

POWER FOR LOCAL AUTHORITIES TO ACQUIRE OR DISPOSE OF PUBLIC SERVICE VEHICLE UNDERTAKINGS

(1) Without prejudice to any powers apart from this section, any local authority within

the meaning of Part V of the Road Traffic Act 1930 who, under powers conferred by section 101(1) of that Act or by any local Act or order, are running public service vehicles may, with the consent of the Minister or, in the case of a local authority in Scotland or Wales, of the Secretary of State—

(a) acquire by agreement the whole or any part of a public service vehicle undertaking carried on by any other person; or


(b) dispose of the whole or any part of the authority's public service vehicle undertaking to any other person,

whether by purchase or sale, by lease, or by exchange or, in Scotland, excambion.


(2) The Minister or Secretary of State may give his consent for the purposes of subsection (1) of this section either for a case or description of cases specified in the consent, or in general terms, and may give any such consent subject to conditions.—[Dr. Dickson Mabon.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Dr. J. Dickson Mabon): I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
This is a very short Clause which seeks to provide general powers for local authorities which are operating public service vehicles to buy or sell bus undertakings operated by other persons by voluntary agreement, subject to the consent of the Minister or the Secretary of State.
As hon. Members know from past legislation, local authorities derive their powers to buy or sell undertakings in accordance with, in some cases, local Acts and, in other cases, in accordance with the Tramways Act, 1870. That Act contains general provision which authorises the sales of a tramway undertaking subject to the consent of the Minister. He inherited this from the President of the Board of Trade. But this power is available only to local authorities whose present bus undertakings are the successors of tramway undertakings. Conversely, all local authorities with power to operate bus undertakings have power to purchase vehicles and fixed assets for the purpose of the business. But there is some doubt about their powers to purchase the good will of a business without acquiring its vehicles, and so on, unless the local authority is a chartered corporation and can use the powers it has in that capacity. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is difficult for an hon. Gentleman to speak against a background of conversation.

Dr. Mabon: I shall not be long, Mr. Speaker., because this is such a small Clause that I am sure that the Opposition would wish to assent to it quickly.
Even when local authorities have powers derived from local Acts, there are certain obstacles to the kind of transaction we envisage in the Bill. We need

these additional powers to clarify the situation. We could proceed under one or the other, but in order to make sure that we have a general enabling power we wish to put this Clause in the Bill.

Mr. Eric Lubbock: I can see exactly what the Minister of State intends to do, but there are one or two points about the wording of the Clause which I find difficult to understand.
For example, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be able to give us an explanation of the word "excambion" which is a means by which local authorities are being empowered to acquire public service vehicle undertakings in Scotland. I am not an expert on Scots law, but I was interested in this unusual word and therefore I looked it up in the Encyclopaedia of the Laws of Scotland. The definition given there is
that legal contract by which lands belonging to one proprietor are exchanged for other lands belonging to a different proprietor".
It was hard to understand how that word applied to the acquisition of bus undertakings which, mainly, consist of vehicles, although I suppose there could be undertakings which included land as part of their assets.
The other point concerns the local authorities given these powers. Under the Road Traffic Act 1930, "local authority" means in England
the council of any county borough or county district.
Therefore, as I see it, the Greater London Council, which at a later date is to take over the operations of London Transport, will not have the same powers as are given to a county council. Would it not have been better to start with a new definition for local authorities?
Section 109 of the Road Traffic Act provides that in Scotland
The expression 'local authority' shall mean the Town Council of a burgh".
I understand that this expression does not include the counties of cities, which will, therefore, also not be able to use the powers given to other local authorities by the Clause.
Therefore, we have an anomalous situation in which the G.L.C., the largest local authority in Great Britain, and, in Scotland, the counties of cities, which are immeasurably larger in their resources than the burghs, will not be able


to exercise these powers, whereas theoretically a rural district or, in Scotland, a small burgh which happens to have a public service vehicle undertaking will be able to do so. I should be grateful if the Minister would explain this point.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: I was surprised to hear the Minister say that the new Clause was a small Clause of little account which we could deal with quickly. I hope that we can deal with it quickly, but it is not a small Clause. The purpose of this legislation is to permit local authorities to acquire outside businesses and—this is a point to which the Minister did not pay much attention—to dispose of their undertakings should they wish to do so. This is a very big departure in the conduct of municipal bus undertakings and I do not think it is something which should be dismissed as a matter which can be got through very quickly.
6.30 p.m.
This is a two-way option: the local authority can buy; it can sell. I must say that it is with very great reluctance that I see the extension of powers of this sort to local authorities, but, equally, I can see that it would be irresponsible not to accept that there could be circumstances in which local communities might be threatened with the extinction of their bus services if they did not acquire them through the municipality and if they were not carried on by the municipality. Therefore I would not myself, at this stage certainly, wish to decide to vote against this new Clause. I am aware that there are local authorities which only recently have acquired undertakings of one sort and another from the private sector. Equally, I welcome the power to dispose of a part of a municipal undertaking.
However, I have one or two questions I should like to ask, because I think that probably the decision whether one agrees or not with the new Clause hinges more on matters of detail than on the generality of the Clause itself. First, I should like to know, when the Minister is asked for his permission, which has to be given before the authority can either sell or buy, what are the tests he will apply? For example, will the test be financial considerations whether or not a local

authority is to be permitted to acquire an undertaking? Will the finance be provided out of rates or raised on capital account or loan?
My second question is about the doctrinal attitude which might exist in the Ministry towards disposal of an undertaking. Am I to understand now that any local authority is quite free as a matter of principle to decide that it does not want to continue to run its bus undertaking, and that, if it wishes to dispose even of a profitable undertaking to a private contractor, there will be no doctrinal opposition by the Ministry to that disposal? Will any Minister under this Government say, "On doctrinal grounds we do not approve of your selling your undertaking to a private contractor simply because we do not believe that is the way a profitable undertaking should be disposed of"?
Is it possible for a local authority, in acquiring a privately run bus company—

Mr. Manuel: "By agreement".

Mr. Heseltine: "By agreement"—to acquire a company which has some subsidiary activities, perhaps through a subsidiary company, an activity which is dissociated from or not immediately relevant to the running of the buses, so that, through that acquisition the municipality would be running some quite separate and irrelevant operation in addition to running the buses?
The Minister has to give permission subject to certain conditions, and it would help the House to come to a right conclusion about the Clause to know what sort of conditions the Minister has in mind. I have mentioned some, but I am sure that there will be a whole range of others which will have occurred to the Ministry, and I should have thought it incumbent on the Minister to explain in greater detail what he envisages in trying to achieve the purposes of the Clause.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Tavistock (Mr. Michael Heseltine) for his reception of the new Clause—for saying that he does not wish to object to it provided that I can satisfy him on the numerous questions he has asked me. That I shall hope to do.
But first, with respect to the hon. Gentleman, I would answer the hon. Gentleman the Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock). He raised three points. The hon. Gentleman was quite right— "excambion" is a Scottish legal term for exchange—

Mr. Lubbock: Of lands.

Dr. Mabon: —primarily of lands, but it can be used in a wider context, though land, undoubtedly, was the basis on which the term arose. Someone interjected that the hon. Gentleman knew little about the law of England either, but I do not take that view of his question. I think he was perfectly right to ask it, and I should apologise to the House that I did not explain excambion at the beginning.
I understand from my hon. Friends that the situation in London which he mentioned will be dealt with in legislation but it does not fall under existing Acts or this Bill at the present time. No doubt, the hon. Gentleman will await that with a great deal of interest.
As to his question about the town councils of burghs and Section 109 of the principal Act, I can confirm that this expression does include the counties of cities. It embraces the four town councils which are the only town councils in Scotland which operate municipal transport undertakings. Therefore, this is a very fundamental question, and I can confirm to the hon. Gentleman that they are within this term.
With reference to the other matters which were raised, this Clause is important since it concerns disposals as well as sales. I accept that, and one would have to leave it to the Minister to decide at any given time the right way of carrying out acquisition or disposal. It is not for me to say what would happen in any specific instance which could be only hypothetical, whether or not acquisition would be borne on rate revenue or borne as a capital expense. I do not know. I suppose it would depend upon the circumstances at the time. If the hon. Gentleman has a specific case, a specific example. I will willingly try to reply to it, but I think the point is that this new Clause is not a hindrance to either option, or to any third option the hon. Gentleman may want to take.
As for the present Minister, I can confirm that he will not approach any of these matters in any narrow-minded, doctrinal way. I cannot speak of any successive Ministers of Transport in a Government formed, in a moment of aberration amongst the people, by the party opposite. I cannot speak of that. I can say that my right hon. Friend will try to approach these things in as reasonable a way as he can.
As for the question of peripheral activities, it is a matter for the local authorities themselves to decide whether or not they should acquire them. The peripheral activities might be such that it would be disadvantageous to acquire them; equally, it might be impossible not to acquire them. It will depend upon the merits of the situation. It depends on the way this Clause can be applied whether or not it is possible to do either of those things. The Clause is in such general terms that the matter can be approached in a wide, broad, fair way in defining what is suitable for acquisition or disposal.

Mr. Heseltine: My principal concern is that in the Clause there are over peripheral activities no powers which would enable local authorities to take on peripheral activities which are not already within their powers under other legislation.

Dr. Mabon: In general, I would say that that would be covered by previous legislation, but I am willing to admit that it is possible, given the circumstances of certain peripheral activities. It depends on which peripheral activities we are talking about. They might not be covered by legislation, in which case they would be Statute barred. With respect, I could not confirm any specific instance off the cuff; I should have to be given some notice of it before I answered the question. I am not quite sure whether the hon. Gentleman is asking me a general question or whether he has in mind the prescription of the four P.T.A.s mentioned in new Clause No. 17, but in general I can confirm that we think that the generality of the matter is covered here, though we could, perhaps, be Statute barred in one or two instances.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 4

ASSISTANCE BY LOCAL AUTHORITIES IN SCOTLAND FOR RAILWAY PASSENGER SERVICES.

A county council, town council or district council in Scotland, or any two or more of those councils acting jointly, may with the approval of the Secretary of State afford financial assistance towards the provision of railway passenger services within, or to or from, their area or areas."—[Dr. Dickson Mabon.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With new Clause 4 I suggest we take the Amendments, in line 1, leave out "district council", and in line 4, at end insert:
'providing that the affording of such financial assistance will not have a substantial effect on the rating burden in the areas covered by the said councils '.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
The purpose of the Clause is to enable Scottish local authorities to contribute towards the cost of unremunerative rail passenger services serving their areas. In Section 136 of the Local Government Act, 1948, which applies to England and Wales, there already exist enabling powers for local authorities to assist any body
…carrying on activities for the purpose of furthering the development of trade, industry or commerce …
in their area. No such power exists in Scotland, and it is desirable that Scottish local authorities should be placed for this purpose on an equal footing with their counterparts in England and Wales. On both sides of the Border the powers are permissive, and any expenditure would require the consent of the appropriate Minister.
The new Clause has been welcomed by the local authority associations in Scotland, and will not require Scottish local authorities to shoulder against their will any new burdens. The power will be complementary to the power which already exists in Clause 36 which enables the Minister of Transport to make grants for unremunerative services. Cases might arise in which the Minister is not satisfied that there are sufficient social and economic reasons for an Exchequer grant towards unremunerative

services under Clause 36 but in which the local authority concerned would be perfectly willing to meet the deficit from the rates for the general benefit of the local community.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Will the Minister say how many local authorities in England have made grants towards the provision of railway services under the powers which they have had since 1948?

Dr. Mabon: One in England and one in Wales. It would be wrong to deny to Scotland the opportunity which is readily available to local authorities in England and Wales. The Clause will enable Scottish local authorities to assist the Railways Board in providing railway services. It will cover such possibilities as the scheme now under consideration by the Highlands and Islands Development Board to reinstate services between Aviemore and Grantown-on-Spey. I would not like to argue that, because powers which have been in existence since 1948 have not been used enterprisingly in England, this rules out the possibility that if we in Scotland had these powers we might not make even more use of them. For example, there is the Highlands and Islands Development Board proposal that we may have a railway museum set up as a tourist attraction in the area. This would not come within the definition of Clause 36 which I mentioned earlier.
The first Amendment to the proposed Clause surprised me because I heard the hon. Gentleman making a comment earlier when my hon. Friend was debating the new Clause in reference to county councils. The hon. Gentleman is contradicting himself. District councils are very important in Scotland, particularly in the parts of Scotland which are not heavily populated. They are very important in statutory terms even though they are not large authorities.
We have in the Bill, at the request of the District Councils Association, power to assist rural bus services and to make capital grants for passenger transport facilities. It would, therefore, be illogical for us to strike out the application of the new Clause to district councils. I have not consulted the district councils, but I do not see them believing that the hon. Gentleman is doing them a favour. From


the conversations I have had with individual district councils, I understand that they would want to have powers on a par with the other three classes of local authority in Scotland.
A case might arise where a particular service would be of interest to a district council but not to a county council. I can think of two recent examples of that. Quite a substantial sum of money could be involved with larger district councils. It would be a very great pity if we supported the Amendment of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) and there were a majority view on a county council which prevented the ratepayers in a district from getting the benefit of something they would be prepared, to pay for. This must be a probing Clause, and I feel sure that the hon. Member will not want to persist with his Amendment.
The effect of the second Amendment is to restrict the assistance which local authorities can, if they wish, give towards the provision of railway passenger services to assistance which would not have
a substantial effect on the rating burden in the areas covered by the said councils".
I do not like to use this as an argument, but the phrase "a substantial effect" is unsatisfactory. It is a phrase which, technically, it is not possible to argue with success in the courts. I must therefore fault the Amendment on this technical point.
To take the intention behind the Amendment, the main reason why the Amendment is unacceptable is that the question whether or not a local authority should add to the rate burden in their area must be primarily a decision for the locally elected representatives. The purpose of the Clause is to put the Scottish local authorities in the same position as their counterparts in England and Wales. The requirement for ministerial consent is an adequate safeguard which I am sure the House will insist on.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Monro: Could the Minister tell us how many local authorities have made representations in favour of the Clause and how many have made representations against it?

Dr. Mabon: I will answer that towards the end.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: We have only a quarter of an hour in which to discuss what are very important Amendments put by the Government in a very tight guillotine Motion. The Minister gave as an explanation that in England the powers had been there since 1948 and this was a reason for them to be applied in Scotland. This is a reason which was not apparent when he brought forward the Bill which was discussed for almost four months in Committee. What is the reason for this which has suddenly emerged?

Dr. Mabon: The reason is that the District Councils Association and others have made representations to us during the passage of the Bill. The hon. Gentleman may remember the Amendment which my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) proposed on behalf of the district councils which was incorporated in the Bill.
The answer to the other question is that three local authority associations are in favour.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: The Minister has said that he has had representations from the district councils, and yet he has also said that this has been discussed with many authorities but not the District Councils Association. I find this impossible to understand.
I am surprised that the Minister should be bringing forward at this time a new Clause which could add very considerably to the burdens of local authorities in Scotland. The Scottish local authorities are extremely vulnerable. Most of the railway lines in Scotland find it difficult to be viable and the scope of putting burdens on the local authorities is considerable. While many passenger transport authorities are to be established in England and there will be the right to precept on the rates, in Scotland we may or may not have one or two passenger transport authorities. The new Clause provides that in the conurbation areas where P.T.A.s are not established, it will still be possible for the burden to be put on the ratepayers.
The Minister has said that there is a protection in that this is permissive, and they may only give the money if they want to. I wonder if the town councils of Glasgow, Edinburgh, Ayr and else-


where, with the enormous burdens that they are facing, largely as a result of the policies of the Government, will say to British Railways, "Your problems are greater than ours, we will make a voluntary contribution to allow the service to be continued". This is ridiculous. The Minister must also bear in mind that, while the powers have been there since 1948 in England, we have only had two instances, one in England and one in Wales in that time.
The situation in Scotland as regards the rating burden is not the same as that in England. Comparisons are made with the respective rate burdens taking no account of the fact that there have been revaluations in Scotland, and when one considers the average rating burden, one has only to refer to the famous words in paragraph 215 of the Allen Report which says:
The average rate payment in Scotland is greater than in England and Wales as a whole for all income groups, and very considerably so.
At the time of the Allen Report, the burden in Scotland was 4 per cent, of our national income, whereas in England it was about 2·9 per cent.
The Minister has talked about permissive powers. Bearing in mind the extra rate burdens which the Government have placed on ratepayers and which are driving some areas to economic suicide, we are extremely apprehensive when the Government bring forward a new Clause which allows local authorities to make voluntary contribution to their trains.
We are very well aware of this danger in Glasgow, where our main commuter service is provided by our electric train system. We understand that it makes a loss of about £400,000 a year. Can the Minister deny that the Clause would be used to put the upkeep of that line on to the shoulders of the ratepayers of Glasgow? There are many other examples of services in other areas—

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: rose—

Mr. Taylor: I am always glad to hear the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield), but we have 10 minutes left, and many of my hon. Friends who represent Scottish constituencies wish to participate.
I am scared that the Government will hold up this Clause to local authorities and say, "If you do not make a voluntary contribution, this line must go". Scottish local authorities are not in a position to bear the burden of supporting uneconomic lines. In Clause 36, we have a provision that assistance can be afforded in cases of unremunerative lines. That is a clear and obvious way in which assistance can be given. If, since 1948, only two local authorities in the whole of England and Wales have said voluntarily that they would like to make contributions towards the railway services, clearly there is no urgency for such a provision in Scotland. Certainly it is quite unjust to bring it forward now when one bears in mind the burdens of Scottish ratepayers.
We have not thrown the Clause out of the window. We have put down an Amendment to say:
providing that the affording of such financial assistance will not have a substantial effect on the rating burden in the areas covered by the said councils.
The Minister of State asks what is meant by "substantial". I can remember many debates in the Scottish Grand Committee when we have discussed what is meant by "substantial" and "considerable". If the Minister feels that "substantial" or "considerable" is the wrong word, will he bring in an Amendment in another place which, in a different form of words, provides the same safeguard?
I am extremely cautious and very suspicious when I remember the Minister's own record in rating matters, his promise that rates would not go up by more than 4 per cent, when they have risen by 16 per cent., and his pledge that teachers' salaries would be transferred to the Government, nothing having happened since.
Scottish local authorities are facing economic ruin because of the enormous additional burdens placed on ratepayers. Unless the Amendment is accepted, in spirit if not in the form in which it is drafted, I hope that my hon. Friends will throw out the Clause.

Mr. Manuel: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) said that he was dealing with this matter in a most cautious way. However, those of us who listened to him


feared that he would burst a blood vessel and certainly would not consider that he was at all cautious in dealing with the Clause.
The Clause is permissive. No local authority need do anything about it if it does not want to. If it considers that it will be a severe burden on the rates, it need not look at it. My hon. Friend the Minister of State explained this, but the hon. Gentleman has glided over it in his usual arrogant way and chosen not to listen to my hon. Friend's explanation.
He talked about lines being socially necessary and said that there are so many such lines in every local authority area in Scotland which may go that local authorities will be dragooned into trying to keep them in operation. However, the hon. Gentleman must be aware that the basic railway network for Scotland is laid down in just the same way as it is for England and Wales and that, while it would have dropped to 8,000 miles under the Beeching proposals adopted by his Government, this Government have increased the mileage to 11,000. Therefore, in view of what is know as the "black" railway network, many thousands of miles of line will be kept in operation whether they are losing money or not.

Mr. George Younger: rose—

Mr. Manuel: No, I will not give way.

Mr. Younger: Give way.

Mr. Manuel: I hope that the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) will control himself. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart would not give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield), and I am following his bad example. Usually I am willing to give way, but there are only three minutes to go—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"]—I am sure that hon. Gentlemen opposite are aware that I had an Amendment down in Committee to include district councils. Owing to the timetable, it was not reached. Nevertheless, it is going through today, and the reason for it is a democratic one.
The Association of District Councils in Scotland, which is a powerful and

democratic body, asked the Government to include district councils. In some areas, although they are not rating authorities, they have quite substantial monies which could help run a ferry service with grant aid from the Government. The hon. Member for Cathcart wants to stultify local government. He does not want the district councils to have any power. I hope that the House will treat his remarks with the contempt that they deserve.

Mr. Younger: I am not happy with the principle of the Clause. It seems to me that we are being asked to approve a shift of responsibility for keeping open railway lines which are necessary for the development of Scotland from the central Government to the local authorities—

Mr. Manuel: Read the Bill.

Mr. Younger: I am very disturbed about what my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) said earlier. If a railway line is threatened with closure and the local authority concerned protests about the proposal to close it and is asked to contribute financially—

Mr. Manuel: It will not be asked.

Mr. Younger: Will it not be told, "If you will not contribute money to keep open the line, you cannot expect your protest to be taken seriously"?
I fear that the Clause is an attempt by the Government to shift financial responsibility from themselves to the local authorities, who will be put into the position of having to pay for uneconomic lines.

Mr. William Baxter: Mr. William Baxter (West Stirlingshire) rose—

Mr. Younger: Usually, I give way, but we are about to come under a Guillotine and are not having any chance to debate this matter properly. Many of us have waited for months for a chance to speak on this Bill. In the event, only two or three hon. Members have had an opportunity. This Clause is coming at a deplorable time, and we are not to be given a proper chance to discuss it. In the interests of everyone in Scotland, it should be discussed. I hope that we shall see a better attitude towards the remaining Clauses which affect Scotland.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Hector Monro.

Mr. Hector Monro: rose—

It being Seven o'clock, Mr. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to Order, to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time: —

The House proceeded to a Division—

Sir Harmar Nicholls: (seated and covered): On a point of order. Mr. Speaker, I did not interrupt the discussion on the previous new Clause, because time was already short. But there are 13 new Clauses which are not being discussed under this guillotine Motion. We

Division No. 171.]
AYES
[7.1 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Hattersley, Roy


Albu, Austen
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Hazed, Bert


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Hotter, Eric S.


Alldritt, Walter
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Henig, Stanley


Allen, Scholefield
Delargy, Hugh
Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)


Anderson, Donald
Dell, Edmund
Hooley, Frank


Archer, Peter
Dempsey, James
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Armstrong, Ernest
Dewar, Donald
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Dickens, James
Hoy, James


Bagier, Cordon A. T.
Dobson, Ray
Huckfield, Leslie


Barnes, Michael
Doig, Peter
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)


Barnett, Joel
Driberg, Tom
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)


Baxter, William
Dunn, James A.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)


Bence, Cyril
Dunnett, Jack
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Hunter, Adam


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Hynd, John


Bidwell, Sydney
Eadie, Alex
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)


Binns, John
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Jackson Peter M. (High Peak)


Blackburn, F.
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Ellis, John
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n &amp; St.P'cras, S.)


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
English, Michael
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Booth, Albert
Ensor, David
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)


Bottomley, R. Hn. Arthur
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull W.)


Boyden, James
Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Faulds, Andrew
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn(W. Ham, S.)


Bradley, Tom
Fernyhough, E.
Jones, J. Irwal (Wrexham)


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Judd, Frank


Brooks, Edwin
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Kelley, Richard


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Foley, Maurice
Kenyon, Clifford


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipswich)
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Ford, Ben
Lawson, George


Buchan, Norman
Forrester, John 
Leadbitter, Ted


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Fowler, Gerry
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Lee, John (Reading)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Freeson, Reginald
Lestor, Miss Joan


Carmichael, Neil
Gardner, Tony
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Garrett, W. E.
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)


Chapman, Donald
Ginsburg, David
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)


Coe, Denis
Gourlay, Harry
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Coleman, Donald
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Lipton, Marcus


Conlan, Bernard
Gregory, Arnold
Lomas, Kenneth


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Grey, Charles (Durham)
Loughlin, Charles


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Luard, Evan


Crawshaw, Richard
Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)


Cronin, John
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.
McBride, Neil


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
McCann, John


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Hamling, William
MacColl, James


Dalyell, Tarn
Harper, Joseph
MacDermot, Niall


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Macdonald, A. H.


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
McGuire, Michael


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Haseldine, Norman
McKay, Mrs. Margaret

have argued this before and we knew the effect of the Guillotine. We knew that it was against the democratic processes of the House. But there was a point on new Clause 2 when we saw the hon. Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. Leadbitter) filibustering to a point when the Chair had to use words which verged on a rebuke. If, in addition to the Guillotine, we have deliberate filibustering of that sort, it means that Parliament is being denied the opportunity of performing its proper duty.

Mr. Speaker: I am afraid that is not a point of order for the Chair. We are operating under the guillotine Motion.

The House divided: Ayes 279, Noes 235.

Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Slater, Joseph


Mackintosh, John P.
Owen, Will (Morpeth)
Small, William


Maclennan, Robert
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
Spriggs, Leslie


McMillian, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Paget, R. T.
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael


MacPherson, Malcolm
Palmer, Arthur
Stonehouse, John


Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Marion, Simon (Bootle)
Park, Trevor
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Swain, Thomas


Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Swingler, Stephen


Manuel, Archie
Pavitt, Laurence
Symonds, J. B.


Mapp, Charles
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Taverne, Dick


Marks, Kenneth
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George


Marquand, David
Pentland, Norman
Thornton, Ernest


Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard 
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)
Tinn, James


Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)
Urwin, T. W.


Mayhew, Christopher
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.
Varley, Eric G.


Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Mendelson, J. J.
Probert, Arthur
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Mikardo, Ian
Randall, Harry
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Millan, Bruce
Rankin, John
Wallace, George


Miller, Dr. M. S.
Rees, Merlyn
Watkins, David (Consett)


Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Reynolds, G. W.
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Rhodes, Geoffrey
Weitzman, David


Molloy, William
Richard, Ivor
Wellbeloved, James


Moonman, Eric
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Whitaker, Ben


Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)
White, Mrs. Eirene


Morris, Alfred (Wythenshaw)
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kennath (St.P'c'as)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Morris, John (Aberavon)
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Moyle, Roland
Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Murray, Albert
Roebuck, Roy
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Neal, Harold
Rose, Paul
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Newens, Stan
Ross, Rt. Hn. William 
Winnick, David


Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)
Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Oakes, Gordon
Ryan, John
Woof, Robert


Ogden, Eric
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)
Wyatt, Woodrow


O'Malley, Brian
Sheldon, Robert
Yates, Victor


Oram, Albert E.
Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.



Orme, Stanley
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Oswald, Thomas
Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Mr. Alan Fitch and




Mr. J. D. Concannon.




NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Corfield, F. V.
Grant, Anthony


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Costain, A. P.
Grant-Ferris, R.


Astor, John
Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Gresham Cooke, R.



Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Sir Oliver
Grieve, Percy


Awdry, Daniel
Crouch, David
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Crowder, F. P.
Gurden, Harold


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Cunningham, Sir Knox
Hath, John (Wycombe)


Batsford, Brian
Currie, G. B. H.
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Dalkeith, Earl of
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Bell, Ronald
Dance, James
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. &amp; Fhm)
Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)


Berry, Hn. Anthony
d'Avigetor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere


Bessell, Peter
Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
Harvie Anderson, Miss


Biffen, John
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Hawkins, Paul


Biggs-Davison, John
Digby, Simon Wingfield 
Hay, John


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel


Black, Sir Cyril
Doughty, Charles
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward


Blaker, Peter
Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Heseltine, Michael


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Drayson, G. B.
Higgins, Terence L.


Body, Richard
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Hiley, Joseph


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Eden, Sir John
Hill, J. E. B. 


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Hirst, Geoffrey


Braine, Bernard
Elliott, R.W. (N'c'te-upon-Tyne, N.)
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin


Brewis, John
Emery Peter
Holland, Philip


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Errington, Sir Eric
Hooson, Emlyn


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Eyre, Reginald
Hordern, Peter


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Farr, John
Howell, David (Guildford)


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Fisher, Nigel
Hunt, John


Bryan, Paul
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles 
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N &amp; M)
Fortescue, Tim 
Iremonger, T. L.


Bullus, Sir Eric
Foster, Sir John
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)


Burden, F. A.
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)


Campbell, Gordon
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)


Carlisle, Mark
Gibson-Watt, David
Johnson Smith G. (E. Grinstead)


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)


Cary, Sir Robert
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)


Channon, H. P. G.
Glyn, Sir Richard
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Chichester-Clark, R.
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Kerby, Capt. Henry


Clark, Henry
Goodhart, Philip
Kershaw, Anthony


Clegg, Walter
Goodhew, Victor
Kimball, Marcus


Cooke, Robert
Cower, Raymond
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)







Kirk, Peter
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)


Kitson, Timothy
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Speed, Keith


Lambton, Viscount
Onslow, Cranley
Stainton, Keith


Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Lane, David
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Stodart, Anthony


Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Pardoe, John
Tapsell, Peter


Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (SutnC'dfield)
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Lloyd, Ian (P'tsmth, Langstone)
Peel, John
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)


Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)
Percival, Ian
Temple, John M.


Longden, Gilbert
Peyton, John
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Lubbock, Eric
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


McAdden, Sir Stephen
Pink, R. Bonner
Tilney, John


MacArthur, Ian
Pounder, Rafton
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross &amp; Crom'ty)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Macleod, Rt. Hn. lain
Prior, J. M. L.
Vickers, Dame Joan


McMaster, Stanley
Pym, Francis
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Maddan, Martin
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Maginnis, John E.
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Walters, Dennis


Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Rees-Davies, w. R.
Webster, David


Marten, Neil
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Maude, Angus
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Mawby, Ray
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Ridsdale, Julian
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Miscampbell, Norman
Russell, Sir Ronald
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
St. John-Stevas, Norman
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Monro, Hector
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.
Woodnutt, Mark


Montgomery, Fergus
Scott, Nicholas
Worsley, Marcus


More, Jasper
Scott-Hopkins, James
Wright, Esmond


Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Sharpies, Richard
Wylie N. R.


Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby) 
Younger, Hn. George


Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Silvester, Frederick



Murton, Oscar
Sinclair, Sir George
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Neave, Airey
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)
Mr. Anthony Royle and




Mr. Bernard Weatherill.

Mr. SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Question necessary to bring to a conclusion the Proceedings on the proposed Clause:—

Question, That the Clause be added to the Bill, put and agreed to.

Clause 2

GENERAL POWERS OF FREIGHT CORPORATION

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: I beg to move Amendment No. 5, in page 3, line 7, leave out paragraph (d).
This is largely a probing Amendment, because we think that the Government should now be in a position to clarify their intentions with regard to the shipping services. We have one or two reservations about the paragraph as it stands, because it allows a major extension of the activities of the National Freight Corporation with regard to sea services. The Corporation is one of those friendless bodies which nobody has welcomed. Those employed on the railways are not enthusiastic about it, and the road hauliers are far from satisfied with it. It is about the only organisation which can truly be said not to have a friend in the world.

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is difficult for the hon. Gentleman to make his case against a background of noise.

Mr. Taylor: As I was saying, Mr. Speaker, the Corporation has scarcely a friend in the world.
Our objection to paragraph (d) is partly related to subsection (2) which gives the Corporation a general authority to expand transport services by sea, subject only to the consent of the Minister. I think that hon. Members on both sides have looked with alarm and some consternation at the extent to which public enterprise has been extended into many activities. A recent survey showed that the Government controlled about 45 per cent. of the economy and its manpower through those whom it employed, and through the money which they expended on contracts.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: Most of the public ownership in transport has occurred under the 1962 Transport Act.

Mr. Taylor: That is rubbish, but I think the hon. Gentleman is aware that at least that Act introduced some responsible commercial disciplines, many of which are being abandoned under this Bill. The hon. Gentleman is a Stone Age Socialist who revels in nationalisation, and in the


extension of public ownership. We do not share his view, and if he and some of his Friends were to abandon their attitudes the economy would not be in the serious state that it is now.
The subsection provides an opportunity for a major expansion of seagoing services. In Committee we tried to restrict the Corporation's power, but every Amendment that we tabled was rejected. The Minister may argue that no major extensions are intended, but there is provision for £300 million worth of borrowed money to be used for the purpose of extending such services. We want to know what extensions are envisaged.
We are told that certain safeguards are privided The then Parliamentary Secretary, who has been transformed to another Ministry, said in Committee at column 172 that there was a real protection against abuse of this power by the fact that the Minister's consent was required. Looking back at previous legislation—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member seems to be talking about the Clause as a whole.

Mr. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I am referring only to sea services, and saying that here, as in other respects, the only safeguard is the Minister's consent. We have had indications from the Government that they intend making certain changes with regard to the Corporation's responsibility for seagoing services. We appreciate that because of the discussions which were necessary the Government withdrew certain provisions of the Bill, but I hope that we will be given some indication of the Government's intentions with regard to these services.
7.15 p.m.
One matter which is of concern to many Scottish Members, and particularly to my hon. Friend the Member for Galloway (Mr. Brewis), who has been campaigning fearlessly for some time, is the future of some of the Scottish sea services, and in particular the Stranraer-Larne ferry. In Committee the Minister of State for Scotland gave a pledge which we greatly appreciated. At columns 352-353 he said that the profits of the Stranraer-Larne ferry should accrue to the Scottish Group. He said that he accepted the principle of our Amendment, and hoped to table one himself on Report. It seems, therefore, that we are at least entitled to

an explanation of what the Government have in mind.
The question of transport services by sea is causing concern in Scotland and I think that we ought at least to have some idea what the Government intend to do. At the moment these are under the general management of British Railways, to whom the profits accrue. We feel that the profits should accrue to Scotland, and I hope that the Minister will clarify the position.
Our objection is to the general power to expand all transport services by sea. We believe in competition. We like to see public enterprise being stimulated by fair competition from private enterprise, but when we consider the financial arrangements being adopted in respect of the National Freight Corporation, we fear that the competition will be hypothetical. I hope that the Minister will be able to give some idea of what the Government have in mind for the future of these sea services, how he envisages their organisation, the extent to which expansion is considered, and what he thinks about the Scottish services.

Mr. Bessell: I do not want to delay the House for long, because this matter was thrashed out at considerable length in Committee. It is, however, important that we should come back to this subject, as we said in Standing Committee we intended to do.
I can understand that it is necessary for the National Freight Corporation to have wide powers so that it can be an effective Corporation, but I am at a loss to understand, and indeed have always failed to grasp, the Government's reasons for including seagoing services. I make no secret of the fact that I do not care for the National Freight Corporation, nor does my party. I should prefer a system of integration, rather than one of control, and one which enables a new corporation to operate services.
If we consider the subsection in conjunction with that part of the Bill which enables the Corporation to run its own services in addition to those operated at present by the Transport Holding Company, we see that this proposal has a much greater significance than is appreciated, or was appreciated even in Committee. We have said many times that we are concerned that the Freight


Corporation, if we are to have it, should not have vast permissive powers which may be misused and involve considerable Government spending—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is talking about the Clause itself. We are discussing only whether paragraph (d) should be included.

Mr. Bessell: I apologise, Mr. Speaker. It is difficult to keep in order and I am grateful for your indulgence thus far.
We must have, what we did not have from the previous Minister, a reason for the inclusion of sea services. I share the anxieties of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) about these wide powers.

Mr. John Brewis: This is my first opportunity to raise this point, since I was not on the Committee. Exactly what will be the position of the Stranraer-Larne ferry service? I see from the Committee Report that the Minister of State, Scottish Office, said quite specifically that its day-to-day management would remain in Scotland. We feel strongly because, when it was controlled from London, the service languished, there were fewer and fewer passengers and there was an unfortunate accident, some years ago, in which some of the blame was attributed to the control from London.
Since it has been controlled from Glasgow, it has been controlled well and is making a good profit. My constituents are anxious that that profit should be used to improve the transport services in South-West Scotland and not to wipe off a deficit in some other area. Will the undertaking that its management will remain in Scotland be kept?

Mr. Henry Clark: I echo the point of my hon. Friend the Member for Galloway (Mr. Brewis) but take issue with my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor). Stranraer is in Scotland, but Larne is in Northern Ireland. We would far rather that the steamer service was controlled from Glasgow than from London, but the people of Northern Ireland are concerned that it should operate efficiently and economically. My hon. Friend the Member for Cathcart wants to ensure that the profits accrue

to the Scottish Group; I want them to accrue to people in Northern Ireland who use the service.
The charges on this ferry for passengers are very low, but those for motor vehicles are inordinately high compared with those between Britain and any other country—

Dr. Reginald Bennett: Not for the Isle of Wight; that is even worse.

Mr. Clark: How will the service be operated? It will not be in the interests of Northern Ireland if it merely contributes to lower commuter-railway fares for Glasgow.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Richard Marsh): The points which have been raised are those which I expected. It was a pity that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) should have made a purely political speech, as he was entitled to do, about the virtues of nationalisation in a debate in which he has been complaining about a shortage of time. But there were some serious points.
The first basic question was, why are shipping powers here at all? It becomes more and more impossible to think in terms purely of inland transport, but the real reason is that shipping powers are included so that the National Freight Corporation can provide the shipping services at present provided by the Transport Holding Company's subsidiaries, Atlantic Steam Navigation and Associated Humber Lines, which will be transferred to the N.F.C. If it is to take possession of ships it will need the power to operate them: otherwise the whole exercise becomes abortive—

Mr. Bessell: Does the right hon. Gentleman visualise the shipping services run by British Rail, for example, eventually being taken over by the N.F.C?

Mr. Marsh: Having once tentatively introduced a new Clause to some extent related to this, and brought down the wrath of God and the Opposition around my ears, I think that any proposals about the shipping services of British Rail should await a later discussion. It is a pity that this has been separated from this Amendment, but I cannot be blamed,


since the only reason that I cannot answer is that the Opposition did not want to discuss that Clause. This is just one of the many absurd situations which they have created.
The other interests are safeguarded by the need for the Minister's consent. Another point was raised by hon Gentlemen from North of the Border. The hon. Member for Cathcart has today been sent a letter by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Scottish Office, which, although he has not yet received it, he will not mind my quoting, I think. Part of it said:
I have assured the Standing Committee on the Transport Bill on several occasions that the day-to-day management of the service will remain in Scotland. The arrangement is in conformity with the views of the British Railways Board and will be continued by whatever undertaking owns the ships employed on the service in the future. The Minister of Transport has already confirmed that, if it was decided to set up a new company in which present shipping assets of the British Railways Board were vested, this would in no way affect the retention in Scotland of the day-to-day management of the Stranraer service.
One could go on on this point, but I do not want to be accused of spinning the subject out.
These are perfectly fair points. The answer to the first is that, if one takes shipping services, one tends to need powers to operate them, and to the second that the assurances requested have been given.

Mr. Henry Clark: Before the right hon. Gentleman sits down, would he answer my point about minimising fares and giving equal benefit to those in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Marsh: The fixing of fares does not come under this Clause and, is not a matter for the Minister.

Amendment negatived.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Bessell: I beg to move Amendment No. 6, in page 3, line 14, leave out paragraph (e).

Mr. Speaker: I suggest that it would be convenient for the House to discuss at the same time Amendment No. 7, in line 14, after 'provide', insert 'inland'.

Mr. Bessell: That would be convenient.
It does not seem right or necessary that the National Freight Corporation should have the additional power contained in paragraph (e). British Rail at present operates hovercraft services; for example, between the Isle of Wight and the mainland, and recently a cross-Channel service was introduced. The present hovercraft services of British Rail run at a loss. I do not complain about this because with a new form of transport it is inevitable that, during the development stages, difficulties will arise. We accept that specialised engineering skills are required and the advertising costs are involved. All these things are bound to make the initial operating procedure expensive. However, to give this additional power at this stage to the Corporation might be a mistake.
I said in Standing Committee that, by this provision, we would allow the Corporation to embark on a method of transport which had not yet been fully tried. I appreciate that hovercraft are being used throughout the world and I agree that the Government should have provided assistance for the development of this new type of transport, which may prove a most efficient way of carrying passengers. But so far it has been found difficult to make hovercraft services profitable because of the high operating costs involved. I am, therefore, concerned at the idea of giving the Corporation tremendous permissive powers which might result in it undertaking vast expenditure on a relatively new form of transport and, in consequence, incurring large losses.
Whatever reservations we may have, my hon. Friends in the Liberal Party want the Corporation to be a success. However, we think it would be better to restrict it at this stage; and at a later stage the Minister could introduce amending legislation to give the Corporation power, in the light of the wider experience which may be available at that time, to go in for hovercraft. I hope that the Minister will adopt a different approach from that of his predecessor.

Mr. Marsh: This is an argument of some principle. I cannot begin to understand why the National Freight Corporation, which is being charged by Parliament with the task of carrying freight, should be limited in the types of vehicle it may use to transport that freight.


There is no intention at present of the Corporation buying vast quantities of hovercraft. As a commercial entity, it will not be its duty to pursue forms of activity other than those designed to produce a commercial return.
As the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell) says, the hovercraft is a new and significant development. Already a cross-Channel hovercraft service is being started and, since the hovercraft has a very large passenger-carrying potential, the potentialities of this vehicle for freight carrying must be considered. We are merely saying in the Bill that this is a "vehicle" for the purposes of definition. Thus, if the Corporation decides, in the light of developments, that the hovercraft has become a useful vehicle for its operations, it should be entitled to use it. It would be extraordinary to impose an arbitrary restriction on the use of hovercraft on land when there seems no objection to it being used at sea. This vehicle is capable of both.
This is obviously a matter of opinion between the two sides. I cannot conceive of any commercial undertaking being established with restrictions on the types of vehicle it may acquire to do its business. Given that the hovercraft is a brilliant experiment with vast potential, and remembering that very large hovercraft are coming into service across the Channel, there seems no reason why, should the same large hovercraft be found to be capable of freight carrying on a large scale, the Corporation should not purchase such vehicles and use them for its business. Why should we impose on a publicly-owned organisation a restriction which nobody would think of imposing on a privately-owned organisation?

Dr. Bennett: Having not been a member of the Standing Committee, I may seem somewhat ignorant about this. I fear that this may not simply be a matter of using hovercraft—and shipping can be considered in this connection, as it was on the previous Amendment—entirely for the carriage of freight. Because of the speed and general lightness of the hovercraft, it is more appropriate for carrying passengers, apart from special cargoes. Will the National Freight Corporation be entitled, among its other responsibilities, to carry passengers?

Mr. Marsh: No, not as a commercial activity.

Mr. Bessell: I am still somewhat alarmed by this. I fear that at some stage the Corporation may enter on an experimental service which could prove extremely costly. The Minister will admit that while British Rail's hovercraft services are at present carrying passengers, as well as a small amount of freight, those services are not profitable. Without passengers, I fear that the use of hovercraft for purely freight transportation would prove a very expensive business indeed.
I gather, however, from the right hon. Gentleman's remarks that it is not intended that the Corporation should, under existing conditions, purchase a fleet of hovercraft and commence operating them for freight transportation within the foreseeable future. He believes that the Corporation should have this reserve power so that if an economic and efficient method of transportation of freight by this means is found, it should not be inhibited from using the hovercraft. Although I am still not happy about this state of affairs, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 3

FINANCIAL PROVISIONS WITH RESPECT TO FREIGHT CORPORATION

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Neil Carmichael): I beg to move Amendment No. 9, in page 4, line 18, leave out ' (Exchequer loans)' and insert:
'(loans out of National Loans Fund)'.
This is a technical Amendment consequent on the passing of the National Loans Act earlier this Session. It means that loans under Section 20 of the Transport Act, 1962, will come from the National Loans Fund. The Amendment simply corrects the references in the Bill to that provision.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: I beg to move Amendment No. 10, in page 4, line 25, at end insert:

'but which will reflect the value of the assets of the Corporation as a going concern'.


We have endeavoured to get through discussion of previous Amendments as quickly as possible because now we come to some Amendments which are extremely important and which we regard as crucial. Amendment No. 10 is one of these, because it deals with the National Freight Corporation and the basis on which it will be competing with other organisations. The Corporation will have wide and sweeping powers. It will have the power by competitive ability to put private road hauliers out of business. When considering the basis of the competition from the National Freight Corporation we have to remember that it will have power to put long-standing businesses, employing large numbers of people entirely out of business.
This point was fully ventilated in Committee. We have every reason, because of that discussion, to raise the matter again. I shall read some of the accounts we were given of the basis of valuation of the commencing capital debt. If the Minister will look at the Report of the Fourth Sitting of the Committee he will see that the Minister of State said:
The assets transferred to the National Freight Corporation from the railways will be taken into account at their full book value.
I ask the Minister to look further down the page. Then he will see that, after an intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. David Mitchell), the Minister of State referred to,
at the real value".
Then, if the Minister casts his eye to column 198, he will see a reference to what is to be the commencing capital debt of the new Corporation which the Minister of State said would,
be transferred at their proper value.
We tried to clear this matter up. After an intervention in which my hon. Friend the Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge (Mr. Stainton) asked if it was in fact
full book value",
the Minister of State said:
Net book value".
The position was not made crystal clear and later my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) asked:
 Will he give an assurance that the Government's intention is to produce a balance sheet for the National Freight Corporation which

represents the true, up-to-date assets of that Corporation".
We received a reply which was not in any sense ambiguous. The Minister of State said:
I readily give that assurance."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee F, 31st January, 1968; cc. 197, 198, 204, 211.]
We have moved from "full book value" to "real value" to "proper valuation" and then to "net book value" and when we asked for the assurance that it was the true up-to-date assets of the Corporation the Minister of State was able to say he readily gave that assurance. If the Minister thinks that we are wrong to raise this matter now, if he looks at those five separate explanations he will understand the reason for our concern.
At a much later stage, after an Amendment had been discussed and disposed of, the then Minister of Transport, who is now at a quite different Ministry exhorting business firms to keep prices down despite the extra burdens she has placed on them, clarified the situation by saying that it was very much different. We had a specific assurance on the basis of which we curtailed the debate and then that assurance was removed. The position is still far from clear.
We had a helpful intervention by the hon. Member for Preston, South (Mr. Peter Mahon). He tried to help us by saying that he was chairman of the finance committee of a local authority, and we greatly appreciated his intervention. He said that of course the basis would be that of the 1962 Act, which was passed by a previous Government. He pointed out that in Section 39(6) and (8) all would be well because we followed the 1962 Act. If the Minister looks at Section 39(6) he will see that there is not an enormous safeguard. It says:
Subject to the next following section, the rate of interest payable on the commencing capital debt of each of the said bodies …
One will be the new National Freight Corporation—
the time when the principal is to be paid off and the other terms of the debt shall be such as the Minister may with the approval of the Treasury from time to time direct.
It should be borne in mind that the Act of 1962 is no safeguard because the grant, when it should be paid and the terms in interest and other terms have to be settled by the Minister.
7.45 p.m.
We appeal to the Minister to see that there should be a fair assessment of the real value of the assets of the Corporation and on that basis the Corporation should compete with private industry. Several hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel), have said that we are considering fair competition. If a new organisation were set up to compete, or if there were a takeover bid, that is the establishment of a new competitive undertaking. Would it be on the basis of book value or net book value? Of course not. It would be on the basis of the assets of that undertaking as a going concern.
If it is suggested that the Act of 1962 is in any way a safeguard for this position, I ask the Minister to consider what has been done in respect of British Railways under the same Act. A capital debt has been whittled down from £1,562 million, of which £705 million constituted a suspended debt, to £300 million. It could be argued that the new reduction in capital totals only £557 million, but that disregards the fact that in 1962 it was envisaged that at some stage the Minister might suggest that the whole or part of the debt should carry interest and be repayable.
If the provisions of the Act are taken into account it will be seen that the railways' capital debt has been reduced by £1,964 million to the proposed new amount of £300 million. Under the 1962 Act, by two strokes of the pen, almost £2,000 million—enough capital to replace more than half the British Merchant Navy—has been written off.
I hope that the Minister will not say that one safeguard is that the transaction comes under the Act of 1962. It allowed a great deal of flexibility which my hon. Friends and I were glad to leave in the hands of a Conservative Government, but which obviously could be abused and misused. We are looking for protection by this Amendment. We have not said that competition should be on an unfair basis, but that the commencing capital debt should reflect the value of the assets of the Corporation as a going concern. It may be argued that this has not been put forward in relation to other nationalised industries, but it is absolutely vital in relation to this be-

cause this will be in the unique position of putting other organisations out of business by under-cutting them.
The private road haulier wishing to travel more than 100 miles will have to apply for a licence. The National Freight Corporation could ensure that he did not get a licence although he could prove that he could offer a speedier service. The Minister might say that, even if the Amendment were accepted, it would not make much difference to the interest which must be paid to the Government, because this is money which is specifically borrowed. This argument was advanced by the previous Minister. She said, "Even if we accept this and write off or write down the assets"—whichever is called for—"it will not make any real difference to the interest payments".
We suggest that the Amendment should be accepted, with the full consequences that flow from that. If the real value of the assets of the Corporation as a going concern is £100 million, £200 million, £1,000 million, or whatever it may be, the logical consequences of that should be accepted and interest should be paid thereon. This is vital, if any semblance of fair competition with the private sector is to be preserved.
We accept that the Minister is flexible. He honestly wants to ensure that there is fair competition with private industry. If he accepts this, surely he will take this positive step and ensure that there will be fair competition. How can there be fair competition if assets of considerable size are written down to a level which might be absurd and inappropriate? We want the assurance which was given in Committee to be carried out to ensure that there will be fair competition.
The Minister has been very active in trying to assure the world that the powers in the Bill will be used sensibly, reasonably and flexibly. Despite that, many business men and many employees in businesses fear that they will be driven out of business by unfair competition. If the Amendment is not accepted, there is every danger that these people will be driven out by competition which will be unfair and which will have no proper actuarial basis.
In these circumstances, I hope that the Minister will accept the Amendment. If he has any doubts, I hope that he will


bear in mind that when the Amendment was discussed in Committee—it may have been a misunderstanding; it may not have been terribly clear—in response to a question on the same point as I am putting forward now we received the assurance that it would be done. In all these circumstances, to remove the real fears which the private sector of road haulage and the public have, I hope that the Minister will accept the Amendment.

Mr. Marsh: This is an interesting Amendment, because it starts from a false analogy between a private sector takeover, which was what the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) took as an example, and this exercise. The hon. Gentleman specifically suggested that if there was a takeover bid the position would be very different. This is exactly the point. This is not a commercial transaction. We are not buying assets or selling assets. We are merely reallocating within the public sector assets which are already the property of the public sector.
The hon. Gentleman fairly made the point that many people were very worried about the effects of the Bill. He is right. Many people are worried—because of a deliberate, sustained attempt by hon. Gentlemen to exaggerate the problems on every possible occasion. This is an example of that.
I am in favour of a commercial body such as this operating in terms of fair competition. I see no reason why nationalised industries should be feather-bedded unless it is done as a totally separate exercise. I repeat that I am in favour of a commercial body such as this operating in competition with the private sector. There is no reason, that argument having been advanced, why hon. Members opposite should expect shackles to be placed upon the public sector which would not be the case in the private sector in these circumstances. To take a rather better and more accurate analogy than the hon. Gentleman took, if a large commercial concern set up a new division and reallocated its existing assets the position would be dealt with in this way.
All that we are concerned with in this exercise is the reapportionment of existing property, existing rights and existing liabilities. We are not concerned with

the creation of new assets or new liabilities; nor are we concerned with the sale of assets at any negotiated price. There is no question of the Bill creating a situation under which the reapportionment of the liabilities in the way proposed would lead to unfair competition with the private sector.
The effect of the provisions of the Bill would be for the assets of the nationalised sector which are already in competition with the assets in the private sector to go over at their current valuation. Why should they not? A new price is not being negotiated. The Bill will not provide for either the writing down or the writing up of the assets that the Corporation will inherit. This is one of those issues on which what hon. Gentlemen are desperately anxious to do is, not to ensure that the competition is fair, but to apply to the public sector a method of valuation and a commencing capital debt which would not be applicable in a similar set of circumstances in private industry. In these circumstances, it would be totally unrealistic to expect the Government to accept the Amendment.
The interesting thing that we find throughout the whole of this debate so far, after all the discussions about shortage of time, is that hon. Gentlemen raise again a case which they argued exhaustively in Committee and on which they received answers from Ministers in Committee. Yet they return to it again today, as they have returned to a number of issues, in my view for no other reason than that it all adds to the picture they seek to paint of the Government wickedly preventing them from discussing issues which they want to discuss. They discussed this issue in Committee. They may not have agreed with the reply which they received from the Government, but they were under no illusions as to what that reply was. They now raise this issue on the Floor of the House again.
The simple proposition is that, if publicly-owned assets are to be used in a different combination under a different heading than before, there is no reason at all why hon. Members opposite should seek the sort of measures which they propose in the Amendment.

Mr. Stainton: I found the Minister's reply very disappointing, and I hope that all my hon. Friends take my view. It


was disappointing on two separate and distinct counts. First, an assurance was given in Standing Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) posed this question: "Will he"—that is. the Minister of State
give an assurance that the Government's intention is to produce a balance sheet for the National Freight Corporation which represents the true, up-to-date assets of that Corporation?
The Minister of State replied:
I readily give that assurance.
Whereupon my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) said this:
In the circumstances, in the light of the assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee F; 31st January, 1968, c. 211.]
Hence our optimism in bringing this Amendment forward and our extreme disappointment that the Minister has seen fit to turn his back on the Minister of State and the assurance which was given in Committee. One does not want to get too intertwined between Ministers and their Ministerial colleagues.
Even more disappointing from the standpoint of the House as a whole is the fact that the Minister has completely failed to appreciate the argument which derives from the White Paper, in whose preparation I am sure he played a considerable part. If that White Paper, Cmnd. 3437—Nationalised Industries: A Review of Economic and Financial Objectives—means anything at all, it means that one must start from the base of a realistic up-to-date valuation of assets.
8.0 p.m.
The Minister repudiated that argument and said that ours was a false analogy. He said that this is not a commercial transaction but is merely a reallocation or reparcelling of assets—we call a bit by another name, send it off in another direction, and leave the same price tag on it. He justifies that argument by saying that a commercial concern would go about a similar exercise in precisely the same way. I rebut that, and in so doing I base myself on my own commercial experience. I have for some time been closely engaged in matters of this kind involving assets of considerable magnitude.
The group in which I am employed has freehold properties held by the holding company, and the operating subsidiaries are charged rentals. The open market valuation of the freehold properties is taken each year, and the rentals charged to the operating subsidiaries are accordingly revised. I challenge the Minister to step down into the commercial arena and try to operate successfully on any other basis.
The right hon. Gentleman used such phrases as "a deliberate and sustained attempt to exaggerate" in trying to repulse our case. In fact, it is he who is guilty of a deliberate and sustained attempt to minimise, to play down, and to try to get away with a fundamental mischief. His hon. Friend the Minister of State, despite the lateness of the hour in Committee, appreciated the point which we made and came round to our view, but his right hon. Friend now repudiates him. I very much hope that all my right hon. and hon. Friends will vote in support of the Amendment.

Mr. Bessell: I was disappointed by the Minister's reply, and, while endorsing the points made by the hon. Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge (Mr. Stainton), I make one further point which, I hope, will influence the Minister to consider the matter further and more seriously. In Committee, the Minister of State recognised that there was validity in our argument, and I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman was angry with the Opposition for returning to the matter again. In my view, the hon. Member for Glasgow. Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) and his hon. Friends were right to put the Amendment down, not only in view of what was said in Committee but in the light of the further point which I now put to the Minister.
The right hon. Gentleman said that in the ordinary transactions of commerce this kind of condition would not be required and that the Opposition were seeking to introduce something which would not be normal business practice. He is quite wrong, not only for the reasons already advanced by the hon. Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge but for another reason. The Government are about to set up an entirely new corporation, a new operating body, which will take over a large number of assets. I agree that


these assets are already in the public sector, but it will take over, for example, 51 per cent, of the total value of the freightliner service, it will take over the assets of the Transport Holding Company and the additional assets which were added to that company by the Act which we discussed earlier this year.
These assets and others to be taken over by the National Freight Corporation will give the Corporation its value. Without them it has none. It is merely a name. It is nothing until it has acquired the assets. If the right hon. Gentleman and I were establishing a private company to acquire assets in the private sector and we were proposing to run bus services, road haulage services or whatever it might be, does he imagine that the person selling those assets to us would do so at their book value? Does he imagine, for example, that a take-over in the private sector takes place on the book value of the assets? If he watches the movement of the stock markets, he must know that, the moment a take-over bid is announced or indicated, the shares go up. This is because of the increased value as a consequence of the offer, which may be made privately or publicly, for the assets under consideration.

Mr. Marsh: This is the difference between us. With respect, that is a false analogy. In the case of a large industrial concern reallocating its assets because it wished to engage in a different exercise, the position to which the hon. Gentleman refers would not arise.

Mr. Bessell: I accept that, but the right hon. Gentleman says that he is here transferring from one part of the public sector to another part of the public sector assets which are already public assets.

Mr. Marsh: In competition.

Mr. Bessell: All right—in competition —and I am pointing out that the right hon. Gentleman's analogy is not correct. He is establishing a new corporation, something which does not exist today and which cannot exist until the Bill receives the Royal Assent. He is, therefore, creating a new unit, and it is to that new unit that the existing assets in the public sector will be transferred. In those circumstances, as would happen in the private

sector, first, the Government have a clear duty to make known to the public the value of those assets in consequence of the action which they are taking under the Bill through the creation of the National Freight Corporation and, second, in order that the National Freight Corporation shall operate fairly in relation to the private sector, those assets must be valued in accordance not with their book or historical value but with their present current value.

Mr. Manuel: I agree with my right hon. Friend, and I expressed my view on the analogy of a new unit coming into being when we debated the matter in Committee. We have past practice to go on. When the gas boards were set up, all the municipal undertakings were taken over. The capital debt and any surpluses of those undertakings were taken over by the gas boards. The same happened in the electricity industry. Where certain sections of industry, on the gas side or on the electricity side, were privately owned—there were some such in certain areas—they were taken over and compensation was paid. But there was just a clear transfer from one public ownership to another where undertakings were municipally or communally owned. The same happened when the National Health Service was formed to replace the local authority health service. There was no compensation paid.
I am sorry to have taken so long in my intervention to correct the hon. Gentleman, and I hope that he will forgive me for the time I have taken.

Mr. Bessell: I accept the length of the hon. Gentleman's intervention. We have had many long exchanges upstairs but perhaps we had both better remember that we are now in the House and not in Committee.
With respect, I am sure that he is on the wrong point here. I accept that in the case of gas and electricity, compensation was paid to those parts of the private sector concerned on the basis of the true value of the asset. The others were taken over from the municipal undertakings, in some cases, I believe, without any compensation at all, because they were still to be operated to the benefit of the same community.
But here a completely new form of operation is being established. One is


not saying, "Here are the gas and electricity industries. We shall continue to operate them although they may be under a different name and control." One is saying: "Here is an entirely new concept of freight direction and ownership." There are not only the Transport Holding Company and all its assets but things like the controlling interest in the freight-liner service which will be taken away from British Rail. I regret that, and I suspect that the hon. Gentleman may also regret it. This will now come under the control of a new Corporation.
In those circumstances it is right, irrespective of the effect on the private sector, that there should be a correct and accurate valuation so that we know where we start. That is also important if only from the point of view of the competitive element which is bound to enter into this. I do not believe that it is the Minister's wish to give an unfair or special advantage to the National Freight Corporation.

Mr. Stainton: Some of the assets may be valued excessively in the British Rail or Transport Holding Company's accounts as they now stand. There is an item somewhat in excess of £300 million in British Rail's present balance sheet which refers to excessive valuations at the time of take-over.

Mr. Bessell: This illustrates the point even better, because it is not merely a question of writing up the assets, if that is the decision of an independent firm of auditors, but might very well be a question of writing them down. They might well prove, for various reasons, such as return on capital, not to be worth as much as they appear to be worth—

Mr. Peter Mahon: On a point of order. Has not this aspect of the Bill been discussed ad nauseam in Committee? The burden of the complaint of hon. Members opposite today is that there are many Clauses which have not been discussed. Will not this be the case right to the end if this attitude persists?

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Further to that point of order—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): Order. I think that the hon.

Gentleman had better let me answer the first point. It is not a point of order. The hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell) is discussing an Amendment which has been selected for discussion by Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Bessell: The hon. Member for Preston, South (Mr. Peter Mahon) regularly raises this "phoney" point of order, so we have become used to it.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the discussion could be terminated, and much valuable time saved to discuss other Amendments, if the Government simply honoured the assurance given in Committee, as reported in Column 211 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Committee proceedings?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The whole House would be wise to return to the Amendment.

Mr. Bessell: I was intending, in any case, to draw my remarks to a close. I hope that I have made the point I want to impress on the Minister. It is vital in setting up the Corporation that we should start with a clean slate and know exactly what the value of the assets is —whether we have to write them down or whether we have to write them up. I hope that the Minister will agree that it is right to look at the matter far more carefully. I am sorry that he gave what I can only regard as a very superficial reply. We are all of us on this side of the House genuinely concerned about this.

8.15 p.m.

Dr. Bennett: May I declare a non-interest. Not having been in the closed shop of the Standing Committee, I hope that I am entitled for the first time to address myself to this subject.
A simple issue is at stake. The Amendment says that the capital debt should reflect the value of the assets of the Corporation as a going concern, which seems an eminently reasonable thing to ask. The Minister seems to think that there is something almost of turpitude in our persisting to take this attitude. If he is unwilling to reflect the value of the assets of the Corporation as a going concern, that must mean that he intends not to reflect the value of the assets of the Corporation as a going concern. If that


is what he intends, what is he up to? Presumably he is bringing in some assets which have been written down already by injections of the taxpayers' money involved in the writing on of the debts of the previous public authority, thereby bringing written down assets into the capital structure of the new Corporation by way of a veiled subsidy to its operations. This gives the operators with whom it will compete every reason to suspect that some dirty work at the cross-roads is going on.
If the Minister cannot bring himself to reflect the value of the assets of the Corporation as a going concern, this is a dirty deal and should therefore be thrown out.

Mr. Marsh: I hesitate to take up more of the time of the House so I shall be very brief.
This problem has arisen before. The 1962 Transport Act pursued the same sort of approach, and it took well over a year after vesting day to determine the commencing capital debt. It is a very complicated and difficult exercise. It would be totally wrong to depart from the concept in the Bill of working on the assumption of the reapportionment of existing rights and liabilities and try to value the assets of the Corporation as a going concern, because we are dealing here with assets which are in competition with private enterprise now, which are in public ownership now, and all we are doing is reallocating, as a company would do.
The hon. Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge (Mr. Stainton) made a special point about the White Paper on Financial and Economic Objectives. The Corporation when settling its pricing policy—and this is the protection—will have an obligation to meet its financial targets and to settle its pricing in line with the White Paper. That means that it will have to have regard to the need to make appropriate provision for replacing assets at current value.
Hon. Members opposite are making very heavy weather of this. One finds it difficult to understand why, when they claim to be so pressed for time.

Mr. Stainton: I follow that this is current commercial practice, but when the Corporation will have a set of books of accounts which reflect current market values, I cannot see why this cannot

become the one and only book of accounts.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: rose—

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Did the hon. Gentleman move this Amendment?

Mr. Taylor: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The Minister has given what he has called his reply, and since he spoke earlier his arguments have been torn to shreds by my hon. Friends while not one single hon. Member opposite has taken part in the debate.

Mr. Marsh: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to answer a question. Many of my hon. Friends are exerting considerable restraint because I have gone to some trouble to ask them to. Does he want them to speak? They are perfectly willing to do so.

Mr. Taylor: We have been aware on previous Amendments of blatant filibustering by hon. Members opposite. The only reason we have not had it on this Amendment is that they know their case is indefensible. If they doubt that, let them consider some of the right hon. Gentleman's arguments. He asked why we were discussing this matter at all when we discussed it fully in Committee. When he said that, those of his hon. Friends who were on the Standing Committee remained silent. They know the answer. It is that, if the Minister had confirmed the reply given in Committee, we would not have taken one minute of the time of the House in discussing this Amendment. The clear assurance given in Committee has been broken. We asked the Government for an assurance that assets would be valued on the basis of an up to date valuation and the answer was "yes".

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: The hon. Gentleman is beginning to froth at the mouth once again. The reason that some of my hon. Friends have not spoken is not a reflection of lack of interest—they have the interest—but is to enable them to hear some of the calamitous arguments put forward by hon. Members opposite.

Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman always rushes to the aid of his Front Bench when it calls for it. What we


are looking for are not debating points but arguments, and I remind him that many of his constituents will find their businesses and jobs affected by the position we are discussing.

Mr. Huckfield: My constituents will gain substantially from other sections of the Bill, including an oil refinery.

Mr. Taylor: We wasted a great deal of time in Committee because hon. Members brought in a lot of nonsense in answer to brief passing references. As happened in Committee, when we get a good argument we can depend upon the hon. Gentleman to try to divert it. He does so because his own case is indefensible. But this is a case which cannot be ignored. Not one minute would have been taken up on this Amendment if the Government had kept the assurance they gave in Committee.
It was in the light of the Government's assurance in Committee that I withdrew my Amendment, so the Minister has no right to blame us for taking up the matter again.
The Minister of State's second argument was crystal clear. He said that all we were concerned with here was a transfer from one public enterprise to another —a simple transaction of shoving assets from one public authority to another.

Mr. Leadbitter: The hon. Gentleman knows very well that, in Committee, I gave him some advice that the instrument of his verbosity had got itself into a speed wobble. Will he now answer this question steadily? Will he tell us in what respects, in dealing with the question of capital debt, Clause 3(3) and Schedule 2 are different from the way in which it was dealt with under the Tory Administration?

Mr. Taylor: I dealt with this point in my opening speech. I have tried to save time by not repeating it, but I shall have to. Admittedly this procedure was laid down in the 1962 Act by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples). [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"] He has been attending more regularly than many hon. Members opposite. I am astounded that so few of them are taking part in the debate. From him at least we had ideas—revolutionary ideas which helped the country.

Section 6 of the 1962 Act does not lay down inflexible guide lines. My right hon. Friend was not one for inflexible guide lines. He was a visionary who made an enormous contribution to transport. I can say these things in his absence because they would embarrass him if he were here. [HON. MEMBERS: "He is here."] I am sorry. I was saying that I did not want to embarrass him but it is good that he should hear this tribute, which is wholly deserved.
My right hon. Friend did not lay down inflexible guide lines. The Act said that commencing capital debt, the time of repayment of principal, the rate of interest and other transactions of debt shall be such
… as the Minister may from time to time direct with the approval of the Treasury.
Since 1962, two things have happened. We have had a change of Government and we have changed the Minister of Transport. Both were moves in the wrong direction.

Mr. Leadbitter: I must fasten the hon. Gentleman down. He says that these conditions were even laid down by the Tory Government in dealing with capital debt. Then he says that what is wrong is that there has been a change of Government and of Minister. What nonsense he is talking.

Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman is very offensive. He always is when he is on a weak point. Even if we were to accept that we had a wise, sound and stable Government in whose hands these flexibilities could be placed, I remind him that the Minister has said that these would be transfers from one public authority to another and that there would be no real change. The Minister says that the Transport Holding Company and the National Freight Corporation can be considered as two identical public authorities. Hon. Members opposite are ashamed to take part in the discussion after that.

Mr. Manuel: I tried to deal with this point upstairs in Committee. Will not the hon. Gentleman admit that not only this Government but previous Tory Governments have followed this same practice when public ownership was involved? These transfers and amalgamations took place under Tory Governments as well


and the same principle was applied in the same way as is being done here.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Taylor: Even the hon. Member for Central Ayshire (Mr. Manuel), when he is dealing with water undertakings, does not have three or four companies whose taps he can use at different times. We are dealing with competitive enterprise, and he ought to bear this in mind.

Mr. Manuel: These were competitive enterprises.

Mr. Taylor: I know that the Government are trying to hold me up, but to talk about water concerns in the same breath as road haulage is absurd.
How can the Minister possibly consider the National Freight Corporation as being the same kind of undertaking as the Transport Holding Company? Has the Transport Holding Company a right to put private road hauliers out of business by the prices it quotes, which will be on the basis of its financial structure? It had not, but under this Bill there is such power. Under the provision of special authorisations we find that the National Freight Corporation can virtually put private road hauliers out of business on certain routes. This competition should be on a fair basis. This is not simply a transfer of assets from one corporation to another, but a transfer with wide and sweeping powers.
Has no one heard of Clause 45? There are wide and sweeping powers there dealing with competition in manufacture and repair. These powers are given to the new Corporation. How can the Minister say that this is a simple transfer?
I was appalled that he did not endeavour to deal with a point raised by the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell) about transferring the assets of the freightliner company. Is this to be done on the basis of net assets, book assets, full value, real value? If it is as he suggested, by the apportionment of a share of the capital debt of British Railways, it should be borne in mind that this capital debt has been written down, by two Acts and by this Bill, by £2,000 million.

Mr. Bessell: Has the hon. Gentleman read the article in a newspaper today, showing the tremendous demand for

freightliner services? Is he aware how wrong it would be to transfer this at book value only?

Mr. Taylor: Not only is it unfair, but it is wrong to transfer it at all. We cannot discuss the matter on this Amendment, and I would not seek to do so, because we have plenty of other arguments.
On what basis is the 51 per cent. of the securities of the freightliner company to be transferred—apportionment or capital debt? These capital debts are not fair and reasonable. They have no relationship to the real value of the asset. The hon. Member for Bodmin has referred to the fantastic growth potential of freightliner services.
The Minister said with some feeling that we were trying to shackle the new National Freight Corporation. What kind of shackles are we trying to put on? The hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield) thinks we are unfair. Has he looked at the Amendment and considered its implications? How is it unfair, unwise, or discriminatory, simply to suggest that the capital debt of the new National Freight Corporation should be based on the fair asset value as a going concern?

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: Can the hon. Member give some assurance that most of the private concerns with which he seems to be so familiar would have the same kind of reflection of the assets of that company as a going concern?

Mr. Taylor: I have dealt with that point fully. I must get on, otherwise the Government will complain that I have taken too long, although I have been constantly interrupted. Real fears exist in private industry which the Minister has done nothing to alleviate. Bearing in mind that this discussion has been made possible by, and is the result of, a clear and categorical assurance given to us in Committee on the basis of which we withdrew our Amendment, I hope that all my hon. Friends will vote on the Amendment and will protest at the shameful treatment which the Government are meting out.

Mr. Marsh: When the hon. Gentleman says that he wants all his hon. Friends to vote with him, I presume that he is talking about the eight hon. Members


opposite present in the Chamber on this important issue.

Mr. Taylor: That is a very foolish point to make. I could deal with it at some length. One thing which has appalled me is that, when we are considering the expenditure of vast sums of public money at a time of financial crisis, there is only a handful of hon. Members on the benches opposite. Every hon. Member on this side know the implications of this matter and how important it is. Unlike hon. Members opposite, who have kept an eye on the Minister to make sure that he does not step out of line, my hon. Friends have confidence in those of us who have been entrusted with the task of dealing with the Bill.

Question put, That the Amendment be made: —

The House proceeded to a Division.

Mr. Peter Emery: (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. A number of hon. Members have been unable to obtain entry into the Aye Lobby due to the crowd of Members—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—who have been congregating at the entry into the Lobby in the Members' Lobby. May I ask two things? Were the full six minutes allowed before the doors were locked? Secondly, can action be taken to ensure that a crush of hon. Members is not allowed to stand in the Members' Lobby thereby excluding Member who wish to vote from obtaining entry into the Lobby?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am advised that the clock was working accurately, and Standing Orders have been applied. That is the reply to the hon. Member's first question. As to the second question, I will instruct the Serjeant at Arms to make sure that the entries are kept clear.

Mr. Eric Ogden: (seated and covered): Further to that point of order. Is it not unusual that only Conservative and Liberal hon. Members of the House were unfortunate in their passage through the Lobby?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am afraid that is not a point of order.

Mr. Bernard Braine: (seated and covered): In the 18 years during which I have had the honour

and privilege of sitting in the House I have never known anything to happen such as has happened tonight. Many of my hon. Friends and I made our way into the Chamber in good time but were prevented from reaching the door on the Government side of the House by the inordinate crush of hon. Members moving in all directions. While I would not question your Ruling, Sir, that the proper time limit was observed by the attendant, nevertheless there is something wrong with the procedure where the crush of hon. Members prevents other hon. Members from carrying out their duty.
I wish to assure you, Sir, that the hon. Members concerned all made their way into the Chamber in good time and were physically prevented from entering the Division Lobby.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have dealt with the question of the application of Standing Orders. I will ensure that the Serjeant at Arms keeps the gangways and entrances clear. More than that I cannot do.

Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: (seated and covered): On a point of order. It is hard to estimate how many hon. Members were prevented from going through the door to vote, but in my submission there were at least 20 to 24. This represents a very serious situation in which many hon. Members who came as quickly as they could found that there was such a great concourse of hon. Members at this door and this part of the Chamber that they were quite unable to vote. In those circumstances, Sir— if I can make myself heard about the hubbub on the other side—is there any reason in equity why it should not be possible to take the Division again?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hope that hon. Members will allow the debate to continue. I will ask the Serjeant at Arms to look into the matter of the present Division, but the business must be allowed to proceed.

Mr. Grant-Ferris: (seated and covered): On a point of order—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman is about to raise the same point of order, I am afraid I cannot hear it.

Mr. Grant-Ferris: On a point of order. I respect your Ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, completely, but I suggest that when a Division is alleged to have been badly taken, or if there is a fault with a Division, it is in the discretion of the Chair to call another Division. If you wish not to call another Division, we must accept it, but if on consideration you feel that we should have another Division, I think this is what the House would wish.

Mr. Emery: (seated and covered): Further to that point of order—

Division No. 172.]
AYES
[8.40 p.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Fortescue, Tim
MacArthur, Ian


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Foster, Sir John
Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross &amp; Crom'ty)


Astor, John
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Macleod, Rt. Hn. lain


Awdry, Daniel
Gibson-Watt, David
McMaster, Stanley


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Glyn, Sir Richard
Maddan, Martin


Batsford, Brian
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Maginnis, John E.


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Goodhart, Philip
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. &amp; Fhm)
Goodhew, Victor
Marten, Neil


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Gower, Raymond
Maude, Angus


Bessell, Peter
Grant, Anthony
Mawby, Ray


Biffen, John
Grant-Ferris, R.
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.


Biggs-Davison, John
Gresham Cooke, R.
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Grieve, Percy
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)


Black, Sir Cyril
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Miscampbell, Norman


Blaker, Peter
Gurden, Harold
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Boardman, Tom
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Monro, Hector


Bossom, Sir Clive
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Montgomery, Fergus


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Brewis, John
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Murton, Oscar


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Neave, Airey


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Nicholls, Sir Harmar


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Hawkim, Paul
Nott, John


Bryan, Paul
Hay, John
Onslow, Cranley


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N &amp; M)
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Bullus, Sir Eric
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Burden, F. A.
Heseltine, Michael
Pardoe, John


Campbell, Gordon
Higgins, Terence L.
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)


Carlisle, Mark
Hiley, Joseph
Peel, John


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Hill, J. E. B.
Percival, Ian


Cary, Sir Robert
Hirst, Geoffrey
Peyton, John


Channon, H. P. G.
Holland, Philip 
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hordern, Peter
Pink, R. Bonner


Clegg, Walter
Hornby, Richard
Pounder, Rafton


Cooke, Robert
Howell, David (Guildford)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch 


Corfield, F. V.
Hunt, John
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Costain, A. P.
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Prior, J. M. L.


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Iremonger, T. L.
Pym, Francis


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Sir Oliver
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Crowder, F. P.
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Currie, G. B. H.
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Dalkeith, Earl of
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David 


Dance, James
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Kershaw, Anthony
Ridsdale, Julian


Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
Kimball, Marcus
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoake)


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Kirk, Peter
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Kitson, Timothy
Royle, Anthony


Doughty, Charles
Lambton, Viscount
Russell, Sir Ronald


Drayson, G. B.
Lane, David
St. John-Stevas, Norman


du Cann, Rt. Hon. Edward
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.


Eden, Sir John
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)
Scott, Nicholas


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Scott-Hopkins, James


Elliott,R.W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)
Sharples, Richard


Errington, Sir Eric
Longden, Gilbert
Silvester, Frederick


Farr, John
Lubbock, Eric
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Sinclair, Sir George

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Nothing has been shown to me to suggest that the Division was inequitable or out of order. Therefore, I hope that hon. Members will not proceed with this point of order.

Mr. Emery: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must insist that the hon. Gentleman does not continue the same point of order.

The House divided: Ayes 217, Noes 281.

Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)
van Straubenzee, W. R.
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Speed, Keith
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Stainton, Keith
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)
Woodnutt, Mark


Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Walker, Peter (Worcester)
Worsley, Marcus


Stoddart, Anthony
Walters, Dennis
Wright, Esmond


Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.(Ripon)
Weatherill, Bernard
Wylie, N. R.


Tapsell, Peter
Webster, David
Younger, Hn. George


Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Wells, John (Maidstone)



Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Williams, Donald (Dudley)
Mr. Jasper More and


Temple, John M.
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)
Mr. Reginald Eyre.



Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)





NOES


Abse, Leo
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn(W. Ham, S.)


Albu, Austen
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Eadie, Alex
Judd, Frank


Alldritt, Walter
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Kelley, Richard


Allen, Scholefield
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Kenyon, Clifford


Anderson, Donald
Ellis, John
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)


Archer, Peter
English, Michael
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)


Armstrong, Ernest
Ensor, David
Lawson, George


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Leadbitter, Ted


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Faulds, Andrew
Lee, John (Reading)


Barnett, Joel
Fernyhough, E.
Lestor, Miss Joan


Baxter, William
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)


Bence, Cyril
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Foley, Maurice
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Bidwell, Sydney
Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipswich)
Lomas, Kenneth


Binns, John
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Loughlin, Charles


Blackburn, F.
Ford, Ben
Luard, Evan


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Forrester, John
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Fowler, Gerry
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Booth, Albert
Fraser, John (Norwood)
McCann, John


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Freeson, Reginald
MacColl, James


Boyden, James
Galpern, Sir Myer
MacDermot, Niall


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Gardner, Tony
Macdonald, A. H.


Bradley, Tom
Garrett, W. E.
McGuire, Michael


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Ginsburg, David
McKay, Mrs. Margaret


Brooks, Edwin
Gourlay, Harry
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Mackintosh, John P.


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Gregory, Arnold
Maclennan, Robert


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Grey, Charles (Durham)
McMillan Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Brown, Bob(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
MacPherson, Malcolm


Buchan, Norman
Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)


Buchanan, Richard (C'gow, Sp'burn)
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Mallalieu, J.P.W.(Huddersfield, E.)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.
Manuel, Archie


Carmichael, Neil
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Mapp, Charles


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Marks, Kenneth


Coe, Denis
Hamling, William
Marquand, David


Coleman, Donald
Hannan, William
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard


Concannon, J. D.
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy


Conlan, Bernard
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Mayhew, Christopher


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Haseldine, Norman
Mendelson, J. J.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Hazell, Bert
Mikardo, Ian


Crawshaw, Richard
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Millan, Bruce


Cronin, John
Heffer, Eric S.
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)
Milne, Edward (Blyth)


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Hooley, Frank
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Molloy, William


Dalyell, Tam
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Moonman, Eric


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Hoy, James
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Huckfield, Leslie
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Morris, John (Aberavon)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Moyle, Roland


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Murray, Albert


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Neal, Harold


Delargy, Hugh
Hunter, Adam
Newens, Stan



Dell, Edmund
Hynd, John
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip(Derby, S.)


Dempsey, James
Irvine, Sir Arthur
Oakes, Gordon


Dewar, Donald
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Ogden, Eric


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
O'Malley, Brian


Dickens, James
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Oram, Albert E.


Dobson, Ray
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n&amp;St.P'cras, S.)
Orme, Stanley


Doig, Peter
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Oswald, Thomas


Driberg, Tom
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)


Dunn, James A.
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull W.)
Owen, Will (Morpeth)


Dunnett, Jack
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)







Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Roebuck, Roy
Varley, Eric G.


Palmer, Arthur
Rose, Paul
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Ross, Rt. Hn. William
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Park, Trevor
Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)
Wallace, George


Parker, John (Dagenham)
Ryan, John
Watkins, David (Consett)


Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Pavitt, Laurence
Sheldon, Robert
Weitzman, David


Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.
Wellbeloved, James


Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Whitaker, Ben


Pentland, Norman
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
White, Mrs. Eirene


Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Whitlock, William


Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)
Slater, Joseph
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.
Small, William
Willams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)
Spriggs, Leslie
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Probert, Arthur
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Randall, Harry
Stonehouse, John
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Rankin, John
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Rees, Merlyn
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Reynolds, C. W.
Swain, Thomas
Winnick, David


Rhodes, Geoffrey
Swingler, Stephen
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Richard, Ivor
Symonds, J. B.
Woof, Robert


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Taverne, Dick
Wyatt, Woodrow


Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George
Yates, Victor


Robertson, John (Paisley)
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George



Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St.P'c'as)
Thornton, Ernest
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)
Tinn, James
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Tomney, Frank
Mr. Neil McBride.

Clause 5

FORMATION BY RAILWAYS BOARD OF, AND TRANSFER TO FREIGHT CORPORATION OF SHARES IN, SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: I beg to move Amendment No. 548, in page 6, line 43, at end insert
'but the Railways Board shall not be empowered to issue to the Freight Corporation securities in the said freightliner company until the expiry of five years commencing with the appointed day'

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this Amendment, we are discussing Amendment No. 549, in page 7, line 8, leave out from beginning to 'and in line 9'. and No. 550, in line 10, at end insert
'and five years after the appointed day there shall be similarly transferred to and vested in the Freight Corporation the aforesaid fifty-one per cent. of the securities of the freightliner company'.

Mr. Taylor: We have only 40 minutes left in which to consider a large number of important Amendments and, in those circumstances, I will put my case as briefly as I can.
By this Amendment we are endeavouring to prevent the transfer from British Railways to the National Freight Corporation of 51 per cent. of the assets of the freightliner company.
Everyone who has the interests of British Railways at heart and everyone who believes, as we do on this side of the House, that the railways have a dynamic and vigorous future, given the

sort of encouragement and policies which appear to be lacking at present, accepts that it is in the interests of British Railways and those who work for British Railways that the freightliner service, which was established, promoted and exploited by British Railways should remain within the ownership and control of British Railways.
Despite the difficulties that arise from time to time in British Railways, they are fortunate in having probably the most loyal and devoted group of workers in the country. It is my experience that railwaymen talk about railways, and little else, because they have the future of the industry at heart. In those circumstances, we have to take into account the high morale and spirit which exists—

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: If the hon. Gentleman is paying tribute to the faithfulness of railway workers, does he really think that the best way to reward them is to tell them that there are 100,000 too many of them?

Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman should be aware that the best way to promote high morale is to have profitability, for every man in the industry to know that his time is not wasted and that he is usefully and fully employed. Luddites like the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield) who try to obstruct progress in British Railways and stand in the way of workers should be ashamed of themselves, because the results are all too obvious.
It is also important from the point of view of British Railways management. A former Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport spoke frequently about the importance of attracting good management to British Railways, and all those who are interested in the railways know that it is a problem to make sure that the best managers are attracted to the industry.
In those circumstances, it is a savage blow to morale for the Government to bring forward a Measure which proposes to take away a major part of the ownership of the freightliner service which has been built up and exploited. This is not simply my selfish view. I doubt whether the Government could advance the view that the National Union of Railwaymen, or others employed in the industry, are happy with this move. The statements that I have read and heard and the views of railway workers in my constituency are quite clear. They want this asset, which has been built up and exploited by British Railways, to remain within the ownership of British Railways.
We also have the views of the former Chairman of British Railways, Sir Stanley Raymond. There was a clear and specific statement by Sir Stanley Raymond, the former Chairman of British Railways, in the Sunday Times not long ago, in which he said:
It seems to me the height of noncommercial organisational theory to separate the sales and production sides of a business and to put them under separate bosses.

Mr. Thomas Swain: Was that statement made before or after Sir Stanley Raymond was sacked?

Mr. Taylor: Even coming from the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Swain) that is a quite scandalous allegation to make. Those of us who know Sir Stanley Raymond know how he battled for the railways. To suggest that he would say one thing before he was sacked and another after is a shameful allegation which should be withdrawn. For the hon. Gentleman, who is always anxious to stand up for those in the mining industry, to make this statement about someone known to my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself as an honourable man, who would not say one thing at one time and another at a different

time, is a shameful allegation and should be withdrawn. However, we have little time on this and other Amendments, so I must quickly come to a conclusion.
I believe that a major blunder has been made in this instance, and I hope that the Government will reconsider the matter. In dealing with this Amendment I ask the Government to explain as simply and clearly as possible the financial basis of the transfer. We suggest that this transfer should not take place; the Government suggest that it should. Will they please indicate, therefore, on what basis they will assess the value of the 51 per cent. and what difference this will make to the capital structure of the National Freight Corporation, because this is a very valuable asset which has been built up and exploited in a brilliant way.
The Minister will be aware that in Glasgow, where this service has been successful, it has had enormous difficulty in coping with the traffic which is available for the railways. This should be borne in mind. It is difficult—

Mr. Manuel: rose—

Mr. Taylor: I have given way several times. We have little time left as a result of interventions of hon. Members opposite. I must get on—[Interruption]—In my last speech I was interrupted no less than 10 times by time-wasting interventions.
Bearing in mind the views of the railwaymen, the importance of preserving morale in this industry and of attracting the best management, I hope that the Government will reconsider the position and at least accept our Amendment for a five-year breaking clause to give the management of British Railways the opportunity to exploit fully this new technique of freightliner trains which they have brought in so successfully and which has such enormous potential.

Mr. Bessell: I am anxious that the Amendment shall be considered very carefully by the Minister. I hope that he will not merely read a Ministerial brief, because this is too important an issue.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Walter Bromley-Davenport: The right hon. Gentleman cannot read anything else.

Mr. Bessell: The hon. and gallant Member for Knutsford (Sir W. Bromley-Davenport) says that the Minister cannot read anything else, but I think he can read his own White Papers.
I have always been concerned about this transfer of a very important part of the assets of British Railways to the new Freight Corporation. The reason for my concern is that the one bright jewel in (he crown of British Railways at the moment is the freightliner service. Indeed, there is a long and important article in The Times today—I am sure the right hon. Gentleman has read it— which points out that the freightliner service is not only a success, but in fact the capacity of the freightliner service on certain of its runs—for example, Glasgow to London—is now overstretched. We know that part of the money which has been allocated to British Railways for the development of the freightliner service is now being used for the improvement of the existing depots at the existing rail heads.
9.0 p.m.
That is the degree of success which British Railways have had with this new service, and it seems wrong—and I go no further than that and use the kind of language which may be regarded as extravagant—that at a time when, under the terms of the Bill they are being placed in a position where they are forced to make ends meet, to break even, and where, if they do not do so they will have to come cap in hand to the Government and justify every expenditure that they make, and justify every grant which may be made to them for the operating of any kind of service, the one potentially profitable aspect should be removed and given, in part at least, to the new Freight Corporation.
I know that British Railways will have the benefits of operating the freightliner service. I realise that they will still have 49 per cent. of the profits which result from that service, but I believe that they would be given a head start if only the Minister would reconsider the question of transferring the controlling interest of something which is essentially a railway service, which should be run and controlled by railwaymen, and to whom the profits should accrue.
We are all concerned about British Railways We realise the difficulties under which they have operated. We recognise the problems which they present for a Government of any party. We are particularly anxious that when there is a chance of British Railways making a real success of a venture, as they have done with the freightliner service, they should not be robbed of that asset. I cannot see any logic in the argument for the new Corporation taking from British Railways something which is not only a success, but which has a vast potential, and which I believe will prove to be the greatest asset in the whole of the railway industry.
I beg the right hon. Gentleman, coming as he does fresh to the Bill, to take the Amendment seriously. It is one which I cordially support because I believe that it is in the interests of the industry, of those working in the industry, of the users of British Railways' services, and of the nation's economy as a whole, that this asset should remain totally under the control and operation of British Railways.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: I am always rather suspicious when some hon. Gentlemen opposite pose as defenders of the British Railways Board. I say that especially because in 1962 they introduced the Transport Bill which gave a former Member of this House, who is now in the other place, the power to chop the railway system in half if he wanted to. It was the party opposite which, by the Transport Act of 1953, showed what it thought of the transport system, and as an example of their latest testimony of faith in British Railways hon. Gentlemen opposite are saying that we have too many railway lines. Above all, the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) keeps saying we have 100,000 railway men too many. That hardly seems the kind of language which ought to be coming from a party which claims to be in favour of our railway system.
We are taking the freightliner services away from British Railways because we feel that this is integration where integration is genuinely necessary. I have never been in favour of the 1947 solution of the British Transport Commission. I know that some of my hon.


Friends do not hold that view, but on the freight side we have chosen to integrate in a direction in which integration is essential and, above all, is possible.
In addition, by setting up a freight-liner company, we will bring about a great deal of necessary rationalisation. There was a great possibility of duplication with a concept like this, particularly on the roads, where vehicles were operated by both the British Railways Board and the old Transport Holding Company; and it was feared that this kind of integration would still have resulted in duplication, with some road vehicles operated by the N.F.C. and some by the British Railways Board. I therefore see this as rationalisation, particularly in a saving of road vehicle capacity.
But if hon. Gentlemen opposite say that they have been in favour of getting this kind of traffic back on to the railways, why did they not look for this solution in their 1953 Transport Act? Everything in that Act or in the 1962 Act was directly aimed at getting as much traffic as possible back on to road haulage. That was their chance, and they threw it away and made sure that the British Railways Board was hampered by as many obligations, social and otherwise, as they could possibly lumber it with—for example, the common carrier obligation. That is the party opposite, which believes in British Railways.
But if the freightliner company, which is of vital concern, is very successful— the Glasgow run is so successful that the Glasgow terminal can no longer handle the demand—it is because British Road Services are already co-operating as if they were a part of the company.
The hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell) did not see the need to take away the freightliner company from the British Railways Board, but has he spoken to any freightliner terminal managers? I do not claim to have talked to such managers all over the country, but those to whom I have spoken say that the freightliner company will be far more successful with its own marketing organisation. They are concerned that the freightliner is still being sold by the Railways Board. I do not run down the Board's commercial salesmen, but because the freightliner is a new concept, it needs a new image and most of these

managers said that to be most successful it needed to be a separate entity with its own marketing organisation—

Mr. Bessell: The hon. Gentleman rightly says that the Glasgow-London run is over-stretched by the demand, but, if the freightliner service is carrying more than its present capacity, why does it need a separate sales organisation? Surely that is a tribute to the present one?

Mr. Huckfield: I thought that I had explained that. I agree that the freightliner is doing very well, but I think that it can do even better with a separate image and marketing organisation. Hon. Gentlemen have referred to the freightliner as a predominantly rail-borne concept. That is not so. The figures for present operating and the forecasts for the future show that 60 per cent. of its traffic will come from road haulage, from British Road Services and private hauliers. Far from being a rail-dominated concept, this is very much an integrated one.
The hon. Member will find that the haul from terminal to terminal is often about as long as the road haul to the terminal. This shows that, in practice, the road haul, added together at either end, is in many cases as long as—and, in one or two cases, longer than—the terminal-to-terminal rail haul.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: I could not agree less with everything said by the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield), who is completely wrong in his facts. The freightliner service was a railway concept many years ago. It was developed by Dr. Beeching following the Beeching Report, and, had the Beeching proposals been carried out, the freightliner service would long ago have been open to both British Road Services and private enterprise hauliers, and it would have been a tremendous success.

Mr. Ron Lewis: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the freightliner service was the brain child of Sir Brian Robertson and not Dr. Beeching?

Mr. Wilson: I said that it was a railway concept which had been developed by Beeching. He gave it the publicity it required in his Report and developed the idea. One could talk about the history of the railways and the sort of services


that were in operation before the war, but I will not detain the House.
It is a pity that this concept was not developed as a railway undertaking because one of the great troubles of the railways is their chequered political history since the war has been a lack of confidence on the part of the railway personnel. That is still the chief trouble. Too many railway workers and potential railway staff do not believe that the railways have a future. One comes across that constantly when talking to people who are leaving the railways or will not join them because of fears about the future. This service was doing well and would have done very well indeed as a railway service. It could have done much to restore the prestige of the railways, and that is why it should be a railway service.

Mr. Ronald Atkins: The one quality I admire above all in hon. Gentlemen opposite, and particularly the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor), is their cast-iron nerve—their ability to follow one inconsistency with another without a blush. I sometimes wish that I possessed that quality.

Mr. Peter Walker: Get on with the speech.

Mr. Atkins: They keep talking about deficits on the railways, yet do everything in their power to prevent us from reducing those deficits so that eventually we can wipe them out. Perhaps the biggest inconsistency of all is their present defence of the British Railways Board. For years they have denigrated this body in every possible way. To hear them defending it now turns my stomach.
We should be congratulating the Board for introducing the freightliner service. Dr. Beeching did not introduce it. Indeed, the first freightliner was the "Condor" from Glasgow. British Railways coupled it with the successful container concept from the United States and, as a result, we were the first European countries to operate such a service. We now lead the world in this system and the Board deserves our respect.
We should not forget that the Board was dealing with an operation. The railways saw that this was a successful

operation and they perfected the operation. If there is a weakness in the British Railways administration, it is in sales promotion. It has been a weakness for many years because formerly, when the railways—under private enterprise—had a monopoly of most transport, they lost a lot of traffic to the roads.
9.15 p.m.
The Government are now heeding the complaints which have been made against British Railways' sales promotion. The Government have decided to give this idea a new start. Of course, the Railways Board has shown success in operation of the freightliners, but so far the system has barely been tapped. There is a tremendous field for development.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: rose—

Mr. Atkins: It is remarkable that the hon. Member for Cathcart still has something to say.

Mr. Taylor: Is the hon. Member suggesting that British Railways do not have the ability to exploit this field of operation?

Mr. Atkins: I say that it is right that this new effort should be operated by experts. I am not suggesting that the Government will not put into this organisation men who have already shown their worth in the development of the freightliner service, but they want a high pressure organisation to bring up the traffic from £2½ million worth to the £15 million worth of which it is capable.
This is a splendid idea which the Government will develop. The Government are now doing something which has been suggested for years—devolution of authority on the railways. Devolution of function is better than devolution of administration into regions, because this is a very specialised business. I hope that the Opposition, with their hatred of British Railways, will not prevent them having a really good start with the ideas they have developed.
Another thing which turned my stomach was when hon. Members opposite quoted what railwaymen have said. Of course, railwaymen hate to see anything being lost to them. Naturally they will have reservations for sentimental reasons, but I have never known the Opposition to be sentimental about railwaymen, or any workers, until now when


it suits their purpose to whip the Government. If they were concerned with what British railwaymen say, they would support this proposal because British railwaymen wholeheartedly support it.

Mr. John Hynd: I would not wish the impression to go out that all hon. Members on this side of the House are enthusiastic about this Clause. I shall not go into the argument made over and over again about the financial position of the railways and the effect which this proposal could have on it one way or the other. That argument is clear.
Much has been said about railwaymen, but in my experience—I know this is true of the major railwaymen's union—railwaymen are not in favour of dividing the freightliner service from the railway service. That is for some of the reasons which have beeen given in this debate. The freightliner service has been developed by the railways. In this discussion we have had evidence that it is so much a success that it has overtaken the ability of Glasgow, for instance, to provide adequate facilities to deal with the inrush of traffic.
This does not mean that we should stop at the capacity we have now. Obviously this will go on, but this peak of achievement has been reached under railway administration. When I hear my hon. Friends saying that the railway administration is not capable of selling the freightliners, I ask them to reconcile that with the record of the railways in achieving this success.

Mr. Ronald Atkins: I did not say that.

Mr. Hynd: This is simply what I understood. As for the selling of this, I cannot see why, after this experience, after proving that they can sell this service, the railways should now be told that they are out of date in sales techniques and that they must have a modern, streamlined service. If a streamlining of the existing sales service is necessary, I cannot see why it cannot be done equally well by the railways as by a separate body. If the transport service is to be streamlined, it must be done by people with transport experience. The only people with experience of freightliner development are railwaymen.
Therefore, I want it to go on record that many of us feel uneasy about this. I very much hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to put up a very convincing case. I shall take a lot of convincing.

Mr. Marsh: I hope that those, if they exist, who are taking notes of who speaks for how long on each side of the House in this debate will include my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. John Hynd) on the other side and not on ours. He raised what is the key point in this debate. He said that he did not believe that 51 per cent. of the freightliner companies should go into the National Freight Corporation. That is a point of view with which I personally disagree. The hon. Members for Truro (Mr. Geoffrey Wilson) and Bodmin (Mr. Bessell) take that view, too. All in all, that is a fairly attractive combination. It grieves me that I am unable to please them.
On the other hand, that is not the Amendment. The Government have decided as a matter of policy, which we can argue about at some other time— we shall have a fair amount of time in which to do it; it is a policy with which one may agree or disagree—that the freightliners should be put into the National Freight Corporation. There is a very strong argument as to why this should be so, because of all the evidence of the interaction of the service in relation to transport. I do not see how we could have a national freight transport system which excluded this very important service in relation to long hauls where rail and road are both involved.
The Amendment is very different. It seeks to put off the date for five years. I can think of nothing more disastrous to any organisation, particularly one which is evolving rapidly and which is highly successful, than to be told, "In five years' time you will join an organisation" which would also have evolved by then. There would be no possibility of any long-term planning. There would be complete uncertainty for the management. Generally, it would be about the most unsatisfactory way of dealing with this highly successful body at the present time if we were to put this off for five years. The purpose of hon. Members opposite is not the purpose of my hon.


Friend the Member for Attercliffe. Hon. Members opposite have designed this as virtually a wrecking Amendment.
I do not think that anybody could seriously suggest that in the present state of this development we could tell those operating liner trains, "You are to join this organisation which is set up now, but you will not join it until five years hence. We cannot tell you what your future will be in six years' time. You have an interregnum of five years". I am rushing through this rapidly because the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) will probably want to say something. This is a totally unacceptable Amendment to the Government. I hope it will be equally unacceptable to all my hon. Friends.

Mr. Peter Walker: I am grateful to the Minister for rushing through his speech to give me a few minutes at the end of this debate. I very much regret the attitude taken by the hon. Members for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield) and Preston, North (Mr. Ronald Atkins) on this point. They made the charge that the Conservative Party and the Conservative Government have always been contemptuous of the railways.

Mr. Ron Lewis: So they have.

Mr. Walker: Now the hon. Gentleman shouts out the same charge. I refer the hon. Gentlemen concerned to only one fact. I suggest that they study the figures of investments in British Railways during the years of Conservative rule. I am perfectly willing for the Conservative Government to be judged purely on those figures. Let them consider the enormous expenditure on electrification schemes and the starting of the whole freightliner concept; let them consider the manner in which the Conservative Government genuinely tried—

Mr. Ron Lewis: rose—

Mr. Walker: With respect, I have only five minutes to conclude in what we regard as a very important debate.
I hops that both sides of the House will always regard a major industry such as the railways as of great importance and will endeavour to pursue policies towards it which help the industry. Obviously, the two sides of the House will differ about that, but I am convinced that

no one really concerned about the fortune of British Railways is happy or pleased with a proposal which takes away from British Railways the salesmanship and commercial success in what is likely to be a considerable success story.
This morning, I had the honour to open the International Container Exhibition at Olympia. I know that the Minister will agree that great pride can be taken in Britain's success here. This country is probably ahead of Europe in container transport development. I visited the British Railways stands at the exhibition, and I found that all the railwaymen present were immensely proud of the progress which has been made. One of the best stands at the whole exhibition tells the success story of British Raliways in this sphere.
When British Railways are at a point in their history when there is a desperate need to attract high-calibre management to take the industry forward, it must be in their interest to retain one of the sectors in which there is great potential for fast expansion. There are many sectors of the railway service in which, by the very nature of things, with people going over to the motor car and so on, there is a decline which the railways cannot possibly prevent; but here is one sector in which there is considerable potential for expansion.
I have discussed this matter with members of the railway unions and with members of the Railways Board. I have not met one railwayman, be he on the management side or on the union side, who has been very pleased at what the Government propose. Adding up all the considerations involved, I am saddened by the prospect for the future. First, the railways will lose some of their ablest commercial men, and, heaven knows, they are short of people with commercial ability, the ability to sell, and so on. Yet under the Government's proposal some of their ablest people will be transferred to the National Freight Corporation. British Railways cannot afford to lose such men of commercial ability. These are the people who, above all, should be retained.
Second, by the proportions of its work force, the nature of its management and the nature of its shareholding, the new National Freight Corporation will be road-dominated. No one studying the


likely number of men employed, the number of lorries, and so forth can come to any other conclusion. It is not good management to say to an organisation such as the freightliner service that it is to be merged in another organisation which will be primarily road-dominated. We hear talk of integration in this connection. The hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield) said that he regarded what the Government propose as a sensible move in integration of road and rail services in the public sector. The integration which I seek for the railways and the freightliner service is integration in attracting every possible customer they can to use freightliners. They should do this with the nationalised road services, such as exist, they should do it with private industry, with "C" licence holders, and elsewhere. I do not believe that one can attract the maximum of potential customers by merging the organisation with a road service organisation which is in competition with some of one's most important customers.
There is a host of reasons why the Amendment should be accepted. We

Division No. 173.]
AYES
 [9.30 p.m. 


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Costain, A. P.
Gresham Cooke, R.


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne) 
Grieve, Percy


Astor, John
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Sir Oliver
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)


Awdry, Daniel
Crowder, F. P.
Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Cunningham, Sir Knox
Gurden, Harold


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Currie, G. B. H.
Hall, John (Wycombe)


Batsford, Brian
Dalkeith, Earl of
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Dance, James
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Cos. &amp; Fhm)
Davidson, James, (Aberdeenhire, W.)
Harris, Frederic, (Croydon, N.W.)


Berry, Hn. Anthony
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Harrison, Brian, (Maidon)


Bessell, Peter
Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere


Biffen, John
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Harvie Anderson, Miss


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Hawkins, Paul


Black, Sir Cyril
Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Hay, John


Blaker, Peter
Doughty, Charles
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Drayson, G. B.
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward


Body, Richard
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Heseltine, Michael


Bossom, Sir Clive
Eden, Sir John
Higgins, Terence L.


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Elliot, Capt. Water (Carshalton)
Hiley, Joseph


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Elliott, R.W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.Z
Hill, J. E. B.


Braine, Bernard
Emery, Peter
Hirst, Geoffrey


Brewis, John
Errington, Sir Eric
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Eyre, Reginald
Holland, Philip


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Farr, John
Hooson, Emlyn


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Fisher, Nigel
Hordern, Peter


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Hornby, Richard


Bryan, Paul
Fortescue, Tim
Howell, David (Guildford)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&amp;M)
Foster, Sir John
Hunt, John


Bullus, Sir Eric
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford&amp;Stone)
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Burden, F. A.
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Iremonger, T. L.


Campbell, Gordon
Gibson-Watt, David
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)


Carlisle, Mark
Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)


Cary, Sir Robert
Glyn, Sir Richard
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)


Channon, H. P. G.
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)


Chichester-Clark, R.
Goodhart, Philip
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)


Clark, Henry
Goodhew, Victor
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Clegg, Walter
Gower, Raymond
Kerby, Capt. Henry


Cooke, Robert
Grant, Anthony
Kershaw, Anthony


Corfield, P. V.
Grant-Ferris, R.
Kimball, Marcus

have proposed a period of five years simply because we believe that the enthusiasm which exists in railway management at present for the whole freightliner concept will, given five years to express itself, create a freightliner organisation which no Government, whether the present Government or a Conservative Government, would then wish to take away. We have sufficient confidence in the energy which railway management and men will put into this concept that we are convinced that, at the end of five year, they will have proved that British Railways can develop the service to the full and there will be no need to take it away. It will have attracted stronger management and better men and will have greatly assisted in the recovery of British Railways.

For all those reasons, I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will press the matter to a Dviision.

Question put, That the Amendment be made: —

The House divided: Ayes 234, Noes 284.

King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Nott, John
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)


Kirk, Peter
Onslow, Cranley
Speed, Keith


Kitson, Timothy
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Stainton, Keith


Lambton, Viscount
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Lane, David
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Stodart, Anthony


Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Pardoe, John
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)
Tapsell, Peter


Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)
Peel, John
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Percival, Ian
Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)


Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)
Peyton, John
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Longden, Gilbert
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Temple, John M.


Lubbock, Eric
Pink, R. Bonner
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


McAdden, Sir Stephen
Pounder, Rafton
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


MacArthur, Ian
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Tilney, John


Mackenzie, Alasdair(Ross&amp;Crom'ty)
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain
Prior, J. M. L.
van Straubenzee, W. R.


McMaster, Stanley
Pym, Francis
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Vickers, Dame Joan


Maddan, Martin
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Wainwright. Richard (Colne Valley)


Maginnis, John E.
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Walters, Dennis


Marten, Neil
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Weatherill, Bernard


Maude, Angus
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Webster, David


Mawby, Ray
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Ridsdale, Julian
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Miscampbell, Norman
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Royle, Anthony
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Montgomery, Fergus
Russell, Sir Ronald
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


More, Jasper

St. John-Stovas, Norman
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.
Woodnutt, Mark


Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Scott, Nicholas
Worsley, Marcus


Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Scott-Hopkins, James
Wright, Esmond


Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Sharples, Richard
Wylie, N. R.


Murton, Oscar
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Younger, Hn. George


Neave, Airey
Silvester, Frederick



Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Sinclair, Sir George
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)
Mr. Humphrey Atkins and




Mr. Hector Monro.




NOES


Abse, Leo
Concannon, J. D.
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Albu, Austen
Conlan, Bernard
Foley, Maurice


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipswich)


Alldritt, Walter
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)


Allen, Scholefield
Crawshaw, Richard
Ford, Ben


Anderson, Donald
Cronin, John
Forrester, John


Archer, Peter
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Fowler, Gerry


Armstrong, Ernest
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Fraser, John (Norwood)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Freeson, Reginald


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Dalyell, Tam
Calpern, Sir Myer


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Gardner, Tony


Barnett, Joel
Davies, C. Elfred (Rhondda, E.)
Garrett, W. E.


Baxter, William
Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Ginsburg, David


Bence, Cyril
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Gourlay, Harry


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Davies, Ifor (Cower)
Greenwood, Rt. Hn, Anthony


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Gregory, Arnold


Bidwell, Sydney
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Grey, Charles (Durham)


Binns, John
Delargy, Hugh
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)


Blackburn, F.
Dell, Edmund
Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)


Btenkinsop, Arthur
Dempsey, James
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Dewar, Donald
Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.


Booth, Albert
Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Dickens, James
Hamling, William


Boyden, James
Dobson, Ray
Hannan, William


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Doig, Peter
Harper, Joseph


Bradley, Tom
Driberg, Tom
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Dunn, James A.
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith


Brooks, Edwin
Dunnett, Jack
Haseldine, Norman


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Hattersley, Roy


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Hazell, Bert


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Eadie, Alex
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Heffer, Eric S.


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)


Buchan, Norman
Ellis, John
Hooley, Frank


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
English, Michael
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Ensor, David
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)


Carmichael, Neil
Evans, Joan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Hoy, James


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Faulds, Andrew
Huckfield, Leslie


Coe, Denis
Fernyhough, E.
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)


Coleman, Donald
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)







Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Roebuck, Roy


Hunter, Adam
Mayhew, Christopher
Rose, Paul


Hynd, John
Mendelson, J. J.
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Mikardo, Ian
Ryan, John


Jackson, Colin (B'h'se A Spenb'gh)
Millan, Bruce
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Sheldon, Robert


Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.


Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n&amp;St.P'cras,S.)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Moonman, Eric
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.) 
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Slater, Joseph


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Morris. Charles R. (Openshaw)
Small, William


Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyns (W.Ham, S.)
Morris, John (Aberavon)
Spriggs, Leslie


Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Moyle, Roland
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael


Judd, Frank
Murray, Albert
Stonehouse, John


Kelley, Richard
Neal, Harold
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Kenyon, Clifford
Newens, Stan
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)
swain, Thomas


Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Oakes, Gordon
Swingler, Stephen


Lawson, George
Ogden, Eric
Symonds, J. B.


Leadbitter, Ted
O'Malley, Brian
Taverne, Dick


Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Oram, Albert E.
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George


Lee, John (Reading)
Orme, Stanley
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George


Lestor, Miss Joan
Oswald, Thomas
Thornton, Ernest


Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S tn)
Tinn, James


Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Owen, Will (Morpeth)
Tomney, Frank


Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
Urwin, T. w.


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Paget, R. T.
Varley, Eric G.


Lipton, Marcus
Palmer, Arthur
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Lomas Kenneth
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Walden, Brain (All Saints)


Loughlin, Charles
Park, Trevor
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Luard, Evan
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Wallace, George


Lvon, Alexander W. York)
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Watkin, David (Consett)


Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Pavitt, Laurence



McCann, John
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


MacColl, James
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Weitzman, David


MacDermot, Niall
Pentland, Norman
Wellbeloved, James


Macdonald, A. H.
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)
Whitaker, Ben


McGuire, Michael
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)
White, Mrs. Eirene


McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.
Whitlock, William


Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Mackintosh, John P.
Price, William (Rugby)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Maclennan, Robert
Probert, Arthur
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Randall, Harry
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)



McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Rankin, John
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


MacPherson, Malcolm
Rees, Merlyn
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Reynolds, G. W.
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Rhodes, Geoffrey
Winnick, David


Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Richard, Ivor
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Mallalieu, J. P. W.(Huddersfield, E.)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Woof, Robert


Manuel, Archie
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedforshire, S.)
Wyatt, Woodrow



Mapp, Charles
Robertston, John (Paisley)
Yates, Victor


Marks, Kenneth
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St.P'c'as)



Marquand, David
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walthamstow, E.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Mr. Alan Fitch and




Mr. Neil McBride.

It being after half-past Nine o'clock, Mr. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to Order, to put forthwith the Question on the Amendment, moved by a member of the Government, of which notice had been given, to that part of the Bill to be concluded at half-past Nine o'clock.

Division No. 174.]
AYES
[9.41 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Allen, Scholefield
Archer, Peter


Albu, Austen
Alldritt, Walter
Armstrong, Ernest


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Anderson, Donald
Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)

Clause 6

THE FREIGHT INTEGRATION COUNCIL

Amendment made: No. 25, in page 8, line 12, leave out from first ' than' to end of line and insert' four'.—[Mr. Marsh.]

Amendment proposed: No. 28, in page 8, leave out line 17 and insert 'or administration '.—[Mr. Marsh.]

Question put, That the Amendment be made: —

The House divided: Ayes 278, Noes 234.

Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Gourlay, Harry
Mikardo, Ian


Bagier, Gondon A. T.
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Millan, Bruce


Barnett, Joel
Gregory, Arnold
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Baxter, William
Grey, Charles (Durham)
Milne, Edward (Blyth)


Bence, Cyril
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Moonman, Eric


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Bidwell, Sydney
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Binns, John
Hamling, William
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Blackburn, F.
Hannan, William
Morris, John (Aberavon)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Harper, Joseph
Moyle, Roland


Boardman. H. (Leigh)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Murray, Albert


Booth, Albert
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Neal, Harold


Boyden James
Haseldine, Norman
Newens, Stan


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Hattersley, Roy
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip(Derby, S.)


Bradley, Tom
Hazell, Bert
Norwood, Christopher


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Oakes, Gordon


Brooks Edwin
Heffer, Eric S.
Ogden, Eric


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hobden, Denns (Brighton, K'town)
O'Malley, Brian


Brown, Rt Hn. George (Belper)
Hooley, Frank
Oram, Albert E.


Brown Hugh D.(G'gow. Provan)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Orme, Stanley


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Oswald, Thomas


Brown, R.W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)


Buchan, Norman
Hoy, James
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Huckfield, Leslie
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Bulter, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Paget, R.T.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Palmer, Arthur


Bulter, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Carmichael, Neil
Hunter, Adam
Park, Trevor


Castle Rt. Hn. Barbara
Hynd, John
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Coe, Denis
Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Coleman, Donald




Conlan, Bernald
Jackson, colin (B'h'se&amp;Spenb'gh)
Pavitt, Laurence


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Jackson, Peter M. (High peak)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Peart, Rt. Fred


Crawshaw, Richard
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'bn &amp; st.P'cras, S.)
Pentland, Norman


Cronin, John
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Perry, Earnest G. (Battersea, S.)


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)


Dalyell, Tam
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyry(w. Ham, S.)
Price, William (Rugby)


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Randall, Harry



Judd, Frank



Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Kelley, Richard
Rankin, John


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Kenyon Clifford 
Rees, Merlyn


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Reynolds, G. W.


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Lawson George
Richard, Ivor


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Leadbitter, Ted
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Delargy, Hugh
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedforshire, S.)


Dell, Edmund
Lee, John (Reading)
Robertston, John Paisley)


Dempsey, James
Lestor Miss, Joan
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St.P'c'as)


Dewar, Donald
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walthamstow.E.)


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Dickens, James
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Roebuck, Roy


Dobson, Ray
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Rose, Paul


Doig, Peter
Lipton, Marcus
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Driberg, Tom
Lomas, Kenneth
Ryan, John


Dunn, James A.
Loughlin, Charles
Shaw, Arnold (llford, S.)


Dunnett, Jack
Luard, Evan
Sheldon, Robert


Dunwoody, Mrs. Cwyneth (Exeter)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Mabon Dr. J. Dickson
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Eadie, Alex
McBride, Neil
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
MacColl, James
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
MacDermot Niall
Slater, Joseph


Ellis, John
Macdonald, A. H.
Small, William


English, Michael
McGuire, Michael
Spriggs, Leslie


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael


Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Storehouse, John


Faulds, Andrew
Mackintosh, John P.
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Fernyhough, E.
Maclennan, Robert
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Swain, Thomas


Fietcher, Raymond (likeston)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Swingler, Stephen


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mahon, Peter (Preston, s.)
Symonds, J. B.


Foley, Maurice
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Taverne, Dick


Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipswich)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Mallalieu, J.P.W.(Huddersfield, E.)
Thornton, Ernest


Ford, Ben
Manuel, Archie
Tinn, James


Forrester, John
Mapp, Charles
Tomney, Frank


Fowler, Gerry
Marks, Kenneth
Urwin, T. W.


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Marquand, David
Varley, Eric G.


Freeson, Reginald
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Galpern, Sir Myer
Mason, Rt, Hn. Roy
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Gardner, Tony
Maxwell, Robert
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Garrett, W. E.
Mayhew, Christopher
Wallace, George


Ginsburg, David
Mendelson, J. J.
Watkins, David (Consett)







Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)
Wyatt, Woodrow


Weitzman, David
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)
Yates, Victor


Wellbeloved, James
Willis, Rt. Hn. George



Whitaker, Ben
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)



White, Mrs. Eirene
Winnick, David
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.
Mr. John McCann and


Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)
Woof, Robert
Mr. J. D. Concannon.




NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Glyn, Sir Richard
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Montgomery, Fergus


Astor, John
Goodhart, Philip
More, Jasper


Awdry, Daniel
Goodhew, Victor
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Gower, Raymond
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Grant, Anthony
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles


Batsford, Brian
Grant-Ferris, R.
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Gresham Cooke, R.
Murton, Oscar


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. &amp; Fhm)
Grieve, Percy
Neave, Airey


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Nicholls, Sir Harmar


Bessell, Peter
Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Biffen, John
Gurden, Harold
Nott, John


Biggs-Davison, John
Hall, John (Wyoombe)
Onslow, Cranley


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Black, Sir Cyril
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Blaker, Peter
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Pardoe, John


Body, Richard
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)


Bossom, Sir Clive
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Peel, John


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Hawkins, Paul
Percival, lan


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Hay, John
Peyton, John


Braine, Bernard
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Brewis, John
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Pink, R. Bonner


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Heseltine, Michael
Pounder, Rafton


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Higgins, Terence L.
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hiley, Joseph
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Hill, J. E. B.
Prior, J. M. L.


Bryan, Paul
Hirst, Geoffrey
Pym, Francis


Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus, N&amp; M)
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Bullus Sir Eric
Holland, Philip
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Burden, F. A.
Hooson, Emlyn

Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Campbell, Gordon
Hordern, Peter
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Carlisle, Mark
Hornby, Richard
Ren-ton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Carr, Rt Hn. Robert
Howell, David (Guildford)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Cary, Sir Robert
Hunt, John
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Channon, H. P. G.
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Ridsdale, Julian


Chichester-Clark, R.
Iremonger, T. L.
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Clark, Henry
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Clegg, Walter
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Rossi, Hugh (Homsey)


Cooke, Robert
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Royle, Anthony


Corfield, F. V.
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Russell, Sir Ronald


Costain, A. P.
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Sir Oliver
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Scott, Nicholas


Crowder, F. P.
Kershaw, Anthony
Scott-Hopkins, James


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Kimball, Marcus
Sharples, Richard


Currie G. B. H.
King. Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Kirk, Peter
Silvester, Frederick


Dance, James
Kitson, Timothy
Sinclair, Sir George


Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire,W.)
Lambton, Viscount
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Lane, David
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)


Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Speed, Keith


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Stainton, Keith


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Stodart, Anthony


Doughty, Charles
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)


Drayson, G. B.
Longden, Gilbert
Tapsell, Peter


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Lubbock, Eric
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Eden, Sir John
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)


Elliot, Capt. Water (Carshalton)
MacArthur, lan
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Elliott, R.W.(N'c'tlle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Mackenzie, Alasciair (Ross &amp; Crom'ty)
Temple, John M.


Emery, Peter
Macleod, Rt. Hn. lain
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Errington, Sir Eric
McMaster, Stanley
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Eyre, Reginald
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Tilney, John


Farr, John
Maddan, Martin
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Fisher, Nigel
Maginnis, John E.
van Straubenzee, W. R.



Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Fortescue, Tim
Marten, Neil
Vickers, Dame Joan


Foster, Sir John
Maude, Angus
Wainwright. Richard (Colne Valley)


Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
Mawby, Ray
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Walters, Dennis


Gibson-Watt, David
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Weatherill, Bernard


Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Webster, David


Gilmour, lan (Norfolk, C.)
Miscampbell, Norman
Wells, John (Maidstone)







Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
Wylie, N. R.


Williams, Donald (Dudley)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard
Younger, Hn. George


Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)
Woodnutt, Mark




Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Worsley, Marcus
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Winstanley, Dr. M. P.
Wright, Esmond
Mr. Humphrey Atkins and





Mr. Hector Monro.

Further Amendments made: No. 30, in page 8, line 18, leave out 'and'.

No. 31, in line 19, at end insert:
and
(d) two members who shall be appointed by the Minister—

(i) after consultation with such as appear to him to be appropriate of any organisations appearing to him to represent a substantial number of persons in relevant employment, that is to say, persons who are, or who are due on a transfer and vesting by virtue of this Act of any property, rights or liabilities to become, employed by, or by a subsidiary of, the Railways Board or the Freight Corporation; and
(ii) from among persons appearing to him to have had wide experience of, and to have shown capacity in, the organisation of persons in such employment;

No. 32, in line 30, after '(2)(a)', insert 'or (d)';

No. 33, in line 36, after '(2)(a)', insert 'or(d)';

No. 34, in line 43, after 'or', insert '(d) or subsection '.—[Mr. Swingler.]

Clause 9

PASSENGER TRANSPORT AREAS, AUTHORITIES AND EXECUTIVES

Mr. Michael Heseltine: I beg to move Amendment No. 537, in page 12, line 26, after 'Minister' to insert:
'after the reorganisation of local government shall have been implemented following the Report of the Royal Commission on Local Government'.
We are now going to deal with the problems of the setting up of passenger transport authorities. The great dilemma which we have had to face throughout the time the proposal to create passenger transport authorities has been before us is that we have been unable to contact any reputable body to support the proposal, wherever the idea has been canvassed. We have, therefore, tried to argue the proposal detail by detail; we have tried to examine the disadvantages, as we see them; and to make it clear to the Government that the whole concept of passenger transport authorities is based upon a fundamental misunder-

standing of what the problems in the conurbations actually are. We have had difficulty in succeeding in this. Therefore, we have tonight put down in one Amendment precisely what our objections are.
Our objections are that passenger transport authorities deal with the problem of congestion in towns, not by dealing with congestion, not by dealing with the growth of the number of cars, not by trying to co-ordinate planning authorities, not by trying to improve traffic management, but by transferring the ownership of buses from municipal undertakings to a new passenger transport authority. We are not convinced that this tackles the problem as it should be tackled. We believe for many reasons that the problem should await the Report of the Royal Commission on Local Government.
To steamroller on with the proposal of public transport authorities will stir up in the conurbations concerned rivalries between operators, conflicts between local authorities and clashes with local people, all of which could be avoided if the Government would have the patience to wait until the job can be done comprehensively and properly. Our first reason for wanting passenger transport authorities to be delayed until after the Report has been implemented is to avoid the strife which has already been caused in the main conurbations as the proposals have been put forward.
It is important that all hon. Members should understand the full implications of the proposals. A great deal of publicity has been given to the concept that the passenger transport authorities are to be set up only in the four guinea-pig areas of Manchester, Liverpool, Newcastle and Birmingham. Many people, including local councillors, have come to believe that they will not be affected by the proposals for the P.T.A.s because they will come into existence only in these four areas. It is made quite clear in Clause 9(1) that passenger transport authorities can be set up in any area of Great Britain that the Minister decides.

Mr. Lubbock: Can the hon. Member tell me what reactions there have been to the Government proposals from the four authorities which he has mentioned?

Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Member has asked a rather embarrassing question. The Government would rather not reveal that all the local areas concerned time and time again have devoted themselves to making it clear that they are implacably opposed to the passenger transport authorities as proposed in the Bill.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is being tempted to get away from the Amendment.

Mr. Heseltine: I accept your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, but I was answering a question which was specifically put to me. I do not wish to stray on to that point.
The main objection on this side of the House is that the proposals constitute no solution in the eyes of the people whose interests they are designed to serve. Hon. Members opposite who represent constituencies in the first four areas will know that the democratically elected local councils in those areas have made it clear to the public and to the Ministry that they do not want passenger transport authorities.
10.0 p.m.
The second reason which I wish to advocate in support of the Amendment is that if we go ahead with the reorganisation and all the upheaval involved in setting up these authorities and then the Maud Commission reports, it is likely that what has been set up will not fit in with the recommendations in the Report and, in the course of a year or two, it will be necessary to have another upheaval and reorganisation in the same areas.
Everyone understands that the root cause of the problem in our major cities is congestion arising out of increased car ownership. It is quite extraordinary that we should be encouraging local authorities to divert their attention from the principal task to which they should address themselves, in which they should be attempting to deal with the congestion in terms of parking policies, land use studies, and so on, and towards ways of setting up new bureaucratic frameworks to take on existing bureau-

cratic frameworks concerned with owning buses, which are totally irrelevant. We are diverting attention from the main problem in our great cities, and that is why the cities themselves are so opposed to it.
There is a third reason which the House should take extremely seriously. By delaying the P.T.A. proposals, it would be possible to avoid a major breach in the theory and practice of democracy as we know it—[Interruption.] I know that hon. Gentlemen opposite laugh at the theory and practice of democracy. I know that it is changing day by day under this Government, and I am not sure that the changes are for the best—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We have had an orderly debate so far. I hope that we can keep it so, on both sides of the House.

Mr. Heseltine: We are concerned with what we believe to be a fundamental breach of democracy which could be avoided. It takes the form of the nomination by the Ministry of Transport of one-seventh of the members of the P.T.A.s, answerable not to the elected local representatives, not even directly to this House, but simply to the Ministry. There are no precedents in current use of which I am aware whereby the central Government nominate—

Mr. Speaker: Order. With respect, we cannot debate the Clause. We are deciding whether certain proposals should wait for the reorganisation of local government as a result of the Boundary Commission's Report.

Mr. Heseltine: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek to advance the view that only by delaying the setting up of the P.T.A.s can we avoid these obnoxious proposals. If that is out of order, I bow to your Ruling, but this is a matter of grave concern and, if I were allowed to argue that point, it would help my case.
Such nominations by the central Government represent a major breach of precedent. Such a precedent was drawn to the Committee's attention by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cath-cart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor), who referred to a situation in Glasgow where local interests nominated people to the


City Council. The Labour people in Glasgow objected strongly to the nomination of outside people and succeeded in having them removed. I am arguing that this would give us in this House the opportunity of ensuring that local government: was conducted by local people democratically elected, and by no one else.
The fourth point that I would advocate in support of the Amendment is that it is quite impossible for any hon. Member in this House and for anyone in the Ministry of Transport to understand precisely what recommendations may come from the Maud Commission in respect of the reorganisation of local transport in our major cities. Until we know the Commission's recommendations, it is ludicrous for this House to waste time examining a set of proposals which, before they are implemented fully, may well be out-dated by the specific proposals of the Royal Commission set up to examine the problem. The House will be aware that the Ministry of Transport has submitted specialised evidence to the Maud Commission on how it would want to see the reorganisation of passenger transport and transport generally in these areas.
The Royal Commission will have wanted to take into account that the crying need of these conurbations is to draw together all the agencies at present responsible for dealing with the various problems associated with transport. It is totally impossible to try to solve the problem of congestion in our cities unless we draw together the planners and they have some co-ordinating operation with the operators. It is unnecessary for the planners to own the operators. It is equally unnecessary to add to the already large number of planning bodies yet one more planning body, which is what the passenger transport authority, in one aspect of its work, amounts to.
It is no surprise to those of us who have made any study of the problem and been to the areas to find out what local people think the solutions are and what they would like to see done to find that the Association of Municipal Corporations, which is by no means a party organisation—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] —I note the intervention. If we are to make this a party matter, which I deplore, I would draw the attention of hon. Gentlemen opposite to the fact that the

quotation that I am about to read was based at a time when the Association of Municipal Corporations was controlled by the Labour Party. It is not surprising to find, in a special statement in the Municipal Review of January, 1968—and hon. Members will remember that January, 1968, was a time before the country had had an opportunity of making its wishes known clearly in local authority affairs—these words:
Our attitude remains that fundamentally the establishment of Passenger Transport Authorities should await the re-organisation of local government following the report of the Royal Commission so that transport operation over areas such as conurbations can be dealt with more effectively and be more purposefully linked with land use planning and the provision of major highways.
That is not a quotation of any party organisation, but of the professionals in the local areas which will be affected by the passenger transport authorities. It calls into question the highy technical work which we are supposed to be doing in this specialised field. When one considers the proposals in detail, one finds that they have been opposed by every reputable organisation either of local government or of transportation. In the teeth of that opposition, without regard to what the professional experts or the democratically elected people say should happen to cure the problem, it is an extraordinary indictment of the Government that they are so big-headed that they are not prepared to listen to the experts.

Mr. Manuel: Despite the cool welcome from the Opposition, I will not be deterred from my point of view.
It has never been my conception of a sensible transport system that it should be based on any local authority boundaries settled by a Royal Commission, as instanced by the Amendment. I do not agree that we should do nothing, with the chaotic conditions that apply within our great conurbations today, until the Royal Commission has reported. It will be a very long time before we get legislation. There are conditions applying in some of our great cities today which causes losses of many millions of pounds to commercial concerns through delays. There is a heavy toll of human life and serious injury because of a lack of control, and a lack of a co-ordinated traffic policy.
The hon. Member for Tavistock moved the Amendment in his usual capable way. He rather implied that what was proposed was a local authority concept as we know it today. He knows that that is not so. The area of a passenger transport authority will not be decided by local boundaries, by city boundaries, or any such thing. It may include 8, 10 or even 12 local authorities depending on the transport needs of the area.
I agree that there will be only four passenger transport authorities, but they will be enlarged to deal with all the passenger problems within their areas, both rail and bus. I am convinced that once the scheme becomes known it will receive a general welcome from the travelling public who will see being fashioned in their areas a system to meet needs which have been neglected for a long time. Rail and bus travel will be dovetailed to avoid people having to carry heavy luggage from a railway station to a bus station, or vice versa. The needs of the private motorist. too, will be considered.
The hon. Member for Tavistock talked wildly about us committing some cardinal sin because we are to try to bring in this concept as soon as we can after 1st January next. The hon. Gentleman thinks that when the Royal Commission on Local Government reports there will be larger local authority areas than there are now, but that does not mean that the areas to be covered by the passenger transport authorities cannot be as large as they might be after the Royal Commission has reported.
I hope that hon. Gentlemen opposite will not be carried away by the evidence trotted out by the hon. Member for Tavistock who said that the experts in municipal transport, members of the municipal transport authority—

Mr. Heseltine: Municipal Vehicle Operators Association.

Mr. Manuel: It is the people in the municipal transport authority who will be affected.

Mr. Heseltine: Those who run municipal undertakings are known as the Municipal Vehicle Operators Association. There is no such thing as a municipal transport authority.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. Manuel: The body from which I quoted earlier wanted the new Clause which the hon. Gentleman voted against—

Mr. Heseltine: I quoted from the Association of Municipal Corporations, which represents all the local authorities and is not specifically an association of transport experts. The hon. Member is quoting from the Municipal Vehicle Operators Association, the association specifically of transport undertakings. Both these organisations have come out flat against the proposals.

Mr. Manuel: But obviously the Association which I quoted was in favour of new Clause 2, which the hon. Member for Tavistock (Mr. Michael Heseltine) voted against, with all his party. So we win one each; agreed? No kudos can be won by the hon. Member, and if I misnamed the organisation, I apologise, since I did not mean to mislead the House.
The hon. Member for Tavistock was talking as if outside people will run the present municipal transport organisations, but if they are a group of six, seven or eight authorities, the P.T.A.s will be recruited from the members of those authorities. Only one seventh, a complete minority, will be nominated by the Minister, and, as my right hon. Friend explained at length in Committee, the last thing which he wants to do is interfere in their work. But obviously, under any legislation, under all Tory legislation, the Minister can direct. Tory Governments did this, supported by the hon. Member—

Mr. Speaker: Order. They may have done, but it is a little wide of this Amendment.

Mr. Manuel: I thought that I was on the local authority composition, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: No, with respect, we are on the question of whether this proposal should be delayed until the Royal Commission on Local Government has reported.

Mr. Manuel: rose—

Mr. Frederic Harris: The hon. Gentleman had better start again.

Mr. Manuel: No, I will not start again: Mr. Speaker would not like that.
I thought that I was dealing with that very point, whether this should be done now or later. However, I have tried to answer the hon. Member for Tavistock and I think that I have talked sound sense. I believe that ordinary, fair-minded people, in the interests of the general good of those living in the conurbations, will support the proposition in the Bill.

Mr. Lubbock: I do not know what authority the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) has for saying that the ordinary travelling public favour these proposals. This is a curious argument which cannot be countenanced by any hon. Member whose post bag is as large as mine but does not contain one solitary word in favour of these proposals—

Mr. Manuel: I tried to explain why they would have the support of the general public—because of the co-ordination of bus and rail, principally, and the avoidance of carrying heavy luggage between two points. The general public are confused by lies from the Liberal and Tory Parties, and once the case is known they will support it.

Mr. Lubbock: I will not bother to ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw that accusation, although he knows that it is an unparliamentary expression to say that I have told a lie. It is the hon. Member who is telling lies—

Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) had said that the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) had told a lie, he would have had to withdraw it. He was making a charge against parties; he may do that.

Mr. Lubbock: I will tell the hon. Gentleman, then, that he is mistaken if he thinks that the ordinary travelling public have expressed any opinion on the P.T.A.s. I do not know how he has the gall to pretend that he represents the views of the people of this country, since he knows that that is absolute nonsense. The hon. Gentleman has no right to claim

to represent the views of the people when the only views he is representing is that of himself. I have never heard such balderdash talked in this House as I heard advanced by the hon. Gentleman. He must, of course, pretend that he has the support of the general public because that is the only argument he could advance in favour of the proposal to establish these authorities before the Royal Commission on Local Government has reported. He thought that he would not be challenged on this, but he has been caught and he cannot quote one letter from the travelling public to support the Government's proposition.
It is unarguable that one should await the Report of the Royal Commission before moves of this type are undertaken. If the Government establish this network of authorities we may find, after a short period—I am not as pessimistic as the hon. Gentleman in thinking that legislation for local government reform will be so long delayed—that other steps must be taken to ensure that local government does not break down. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is wrong when he says that the Government will delay for a considerable time the implementation of the Royal Commission's findings.

Mr. Manuel: Mr. Manuel indicated dissent.

Mr. Lubbock: That was the import of his remarks.

Mr. Manuel: I did not say that. I said—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Gentlemen who have been listened to in silence ought to listen to the case made against themselves.

Mr. Lubbock: The Government recognise that local government is creaky and obsolete and that the whole structure must be reformed. As the hon. Member for Tavistock (Mr. Michael Heseltine) said, the Ministry of Transport has put its proposals to the Royal Commission, There is a fundamental argument about whether we should have perhaps 50 city regions—which is, I understand, the view of the Ministerial evidence submitted to the Royal Commission—or a much smaller number, perhaps 10 or 12, which is the view of other experts, with a similar concentration into large authorities in other parts of the country.
If the authorities as proposed by the Government are established and then, as I hope, the reorganisation of local government is based on much wider groupings, there will be the colossal expense and administrative inconvenience of making a transfer of these undertakings from city regions to the larger groupings that may come into existence. It would, therefore, be better to wait a short time rather than have two administrative upheavals within a short period.
We must remember that the legislation which is going through at present and the many measures which the Government hope to introduce are all subject to overriding considerations relating to the economic situation. We are encouraging local authorities to defer capital expenditure, we are trying to prune the capital expenditure of the nationalised industries and we are placing brakes on expenditure in private industry. In this situation, which I think may last for another 12 to 18 months, we should not be encouraging the expenditure provided for under the Clause when a short delay would lead to immense savings.
That is a good argument for the Amendment, in addition to which I support the view that if we delayed setting up these authorities until a reorganisation of local government could come about on a proper footing, the authorities could be entirely democratic, of which no hon. Gentleman opposite will disapprove. One might not take so strong an objection to having one-seventh of the

authority appointed by the Ministry of Transport, but it must be acceptable and the whole should be democratically controlled by regional authorities.
Is it to be said that it is desirable for ever more to have some members appointed by the Minister? I do not think hon. Members would defend that in their constituencies, where they are always talking about restoring power to the people. Is it not inconsistent now to be talking about the establishment of local authorities a proportion of which will be appointed from Whitehall? This is the reversal of regionalism.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is speaking on the Clause. He must stick to the Amendment.

Mr. Lubbock: This is an aspect which would be avoided if we passed this Amendment. If we were to delay the setting up of these authorities until the Royal Commission reported, it would not be necessary for members of the authorities to be appointed from Whitehall. For all these reasons, I object to the proposal particularly because no one has had a good word to say for it. All the organisations which have been consulted have been unanimously opposed to the proposal. The Minister would be unwise to ignore this considerable weight of opinion.
If all these authorities and the experts say that they would prefer not to make this change at this stage, the Minister of State would be extremely unwise not to accept the Amendment.

Mr. Charles Mapp: The speeches made so far on this subject seem by implication to accept that the boundaries of local government have been ideal for transport purposes in the past and that they will be ideal for passenger transport purposes in the future. Hon. Members know that the boundaries of local government in the past, and those which are likely to be made, are quite immaterial to the operating of a passenger transport fleet. Anyone with knowledge of this subject, particularly hon. Members on the Opposition Front Bench, knows that is the case.
I suppose that this great city would not have had its present organisation, although it is to be reorganised shortly, if in the thirties we had waited for the kind of argument involved in this Amendment. It is a delaying argument and designed for avoiding decision. In Lancashire there are county boroughs formed with little regard to geography which are historically well defined but in terms of the modern age they should be joined together and knitted into the great conurbations.
I know the Liverpool and Manchester areas well. Tonight my wife happens to be travelling from outside Stockport to Oldham and she has to use public transport in three separate services to do a journey of 12 miles. That is because she does not drive the car, which is in the garage. That is a typical instance of what occurs in Lancashire where, because of vested interests of local authorities as well as private operators, the systems have never been big enough to see the wider claim put before them. The wider claim in the modern age is that people want to travel between Stockport and Bolton, Liverpool and Wigan and Burnley and Oldham, but there is cross-fertilisation between the transport systems in the county and also in the Midlands. For hon. Members opposite to plead history for this is to put their party prejudice before their practical knowledge.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. Daniel Awdry: The hon. Gentleman says that local government boundaries will still be inappropriate for transport matters, even after the Report of the Royal Commission.

Would it not be better to wait for the result of the Royal Commission?

Mr. Mapp: The hon. Gentleman has a point, but Chippenham and Lancashire are totally different places. The evidence being given to the Royal Commission will not primarily concern transport matters. It will deal with local government, housing, water and other services. Transport will be an important also-ran. The Royal Commission will not redraw the boundaries of Lancashire or anywhere else from the point of view of operating a passenger transport fleet.
The proposition contained in the Amendment is not practical. Anyone running a transport fleet in an area where there was a mixture of population wanting to travel for work, shopping or pleasure would not give more than two minutes' consideration to this proposition. He is more concerned with the passengers being carried by his fleet and with the populous districts and less populous districts where a combined fleet could operate with a reasonable schedule. This is sheer time wasting of the type that went on in Standing Committee.
I have a perfectly open mind on this. I have a little knowledge of the subject. I have not heard a contribution today, nor read one that was made in Standing Committee, which was directed to the nub of the problem of how we can organise passenger transport in and around the conurbations in the Midlands, in Glasgow, in the North-East, and in the Lancashire area. Had I heard any such contribution, I should have been prepared to examine it and perhaps give a little advice to the Minister. This is a delaying operation. The hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) sits there smiling, thinking that this can be done in a few months. The Report of the Royal Commission may be here within 12 months, but it will take two years to get it through the House with all the manifest differences of opinion amongst the Tories and within his own party. This is nothing more than a delaying operation.
Londoners are blessed with a centrally operated, large passenger transport undertaking. It may have its defects, but that principle of being able to spread the load throughout the area where


transport is required is right. Local boundaries are not the yardstick of a transport operator. London faced up to this 30 years ago. Rearrangements are being made, but the main issue is not in question. The only way to run a reasonably large passenger system to serve the new areas which our society is creating is on a conurbation basis of some form or other, and to mix this question up with local government is to waste time. I say that whether the reference is to local government as it exists now or as it will be.
Let the thing be done according to the practical realities. At another time, I could explain to the Minister why I am not too happy about the present way of approaching this matter. I should like to see the country divided up so that urban areas would help rural areas. But that is another argument for another time. There is no argument whatever for the proposal advanced by the Opposition here.

Mr. Awdry: I resent the suggestion that this proposal is a delaying operation, the idea being that the Government think that they can steamroller their Bill through—the Guillotine gives support to that view—and that anyone who speaks from this side is merely trying to delay matters. That is not so at all. We have consistently opposed this Part of the Bill, for reasons which we sincerely hold. I did not speak in the Standing Committee on the question of the P.T.As, though I spoke on other matters, but I speak on this Amendment now because I feel very strongly about it.
The Amendment is an expression of plain common sense. There is no enthusiasm for the P.T.As. The hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) challenged hon. Members opposite to say whether they had received a single letter or any evidence whatever that there was enthusiastic support for the concept of P.T.As, and not a murmur of response came. I almost felt sorry for the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel); I have never seen an hon. Member's argument so completely demolished.
We all agree that local government needs reform. We have waited far too long for local government reform. We should like to see, and we shall see, the

total reform of the areas of local government, the financial structure of local government, the status of local government, and—to meet the point made by the hon. Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Mapp)—we look forward to a re-examination of the question of transport in local government. The hon. Gentleman seemed to think that even when local government was reorganised, it would still be ineffective to deal with transport. I hope that that will not be so. I hope that the new organisation of local government will arrange the authorities in such a way that they can deal properly with transport problems.
Local government reform is on the way. This year, we expect to receive the Report of the Maud Commission. How stupid it would be to arrange the P.T.As after this Bill is passed and then, a year or two later, when local government is reformed, dislocate the whole thing again.

Mr. Ron Lewis: Can the hon. Gentleman assure me that what he has said about local government reform is the official policy of the Tory Party?

Mr. Awdry: I can give the assurance that the Tory Party would like to see the reform of local government. There is no question about that. Any member of any political party knows that the one thing in this country which needs reform more thany anything else is local government. What we on this side say would be utterly ludicrous would be to steamroller through the new concept of P.T.As, which will have a great dislocating effect, and then, two years later, with the reform of local government and have to reshape everything again. As was said hour after hour in Committee, the P.T.As are not democratic. It is because people feel today that our institutions are not democratic that disillusionment is setting in. That was the burden of the speech of the Minister of Technology over the weekend. Further organisations of this type which are not truly democratic will be a step in the wrong direction.
Far too much legislation is going through at present. Every single newspaper is saying just that. Every article was on that theme this weekend. As local government reform is now on the way it is nothing less than madness to


try to push this through now. That is why the Amendment is common sense. It is a pity that only about 20 hon. Members opposite have taken the trouble to come to listen to the debate. That sort of thing is the reason why Parliamentarians get a little frustrated. This is a very important matter, and I hope that the Minister will, even now, think again.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: I was amazed to hear the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Awdry), who we know has vast experience of local government, refer to the democratic control which exists, for instance, of companies like the Midland Red or the Tillings Group. At least passenger transport authorities are an advance on the kind of democracy that exists already in some of our conurbations.
I was even more surprised to hear the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock), who is normally in favour of brave experiments in local government, say that he did not want to go through with this one. I should have thought that if anything would be considered a step forward towards regional government it would be the passenger transport authority concept.
I am rather suspicious to hear hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench opposite arguing fiercely in favour of local authorities, especially in the light of some of the not too complimentary things they were quite happy to say about local authorities earlier this evening. We on this side of the House all know the true purpose of the Amendment is to wreck passenger transport authorities. Hon. Members opposite all know full well that even when the Maud Commission's Report on local government is published there is bound to be a tremendous interval, during which there will be a whole host of arguments, before that Report can be implemented.
The hon. Member for Tavistock (Mr. Michael Heseltine) is shaking his head. We know full well that he is really arguing for putting off P.T.As completely. If that is so, I suggest that in the visits he claims he has made to some of the conurbations which will have P.T.As lie did not consider adequately the kind of situation we have had recently in the West Midlands. The situation there, including two complete public and private passenger transport undertaking

breakdowns, will not wait for the Royal Commission's Report; it probably will not wait longer than the end of this year. So, in at least one conurbation, and I suspect, in others soon, P.T.As—

Mr. Michael Heseltine: Which of the authorities in the West Midlands believe that their problems would be solved by the introduction of P.T.As?

Mr. Huckfield: Most West Midlands local authorities are acting on the advice of the Tory Central Office. Since I represent a West Midlands constituency— [Interruption]—I am likely to be in my position a bit longer than the hon. Member for Tavistock, because at least my constituency does not disappear under the Boundary Commission's recommendtions.

Mr. Bessell: Before the latest local council elections, which Labour local councils approved of the passenger transport authorities?

10.45 p.m.

Mr. Huckfield: Again, that is a rather misleading question. The hon. Member knows full well that the main local authorities are voicing opinions on passenger transport authorities precisely on the advice of Tory Central Office.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: rose—

Mr. Huckfield: I would prefer to make my own speech. [Interruption.] I can understand the great feeling that is bound to exist on passenger transport authorities in Knutsford.
Hon. Members opposite simply have not understood the Bill. All that the Bill provides is that a transport passenger authority, once set up, will have power to vary boundaries. Taking the precedents which have been set for the establishment of passenger transport authorities, the proposals to vary the boundaries, perhaps in conjunction with the recommendations of the Royal Commission, are feasible even within the terms of the passenger transport authority scheme.
Hon. Members opposite refer to the vast opposition, as they say, which has come from certain local authorities. They should take a very close look at the source of some of the leaflets which some local authorities are putting out against


passenger transport authorities. I do not think they will find that the opposition comes from the local authorities, except Newcastle, which is fighting the authorities on the rates, which is rather unusual. The source of these leaflets is the Tory Central Office.

Mr. Anthony Berry: I have many times followed the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield) in debate in the past few months. He has not learned very much from our discussions. I am disappointed in him. I remember the enthusiasm with which he went off a month or two ago to help in the by-election in Meriden. We have not heard very much about that.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: In the part of the Meriden constituency in which I helped the results were quite good.

Mr. Berry: I am not surprised that the hon. Member is suspicious about local authorities. I do not blame him for that. It is a natural feeling in his party at this time.
However, I am surprised that hon. Members opposite should be so doubtful about this very reasonable Amendment, which was moved, as always, by my hon. Friend the Member for Tavistock (Mr. Michael Heseltine) in his quiet and effective way. Since so many hon. Members opposite—I am glad to see that they are still interested in the Bill—were with us during the months which we spent upstairs, I should have thought that, having heard the arguments and having had the opportunity of restudying the Minister's speech on this important part of the Bill, they would have come to the conclusion, as we on this side of the House have, that this part of the Bill should be put off.
I was surprised that the hon. Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Mapp), who spoke about the future rôle of local government, referred to transport as "an also ran". I should have thought that transport merited a higher rating than that. I much prefer the approach of the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock). He spoke as fluently and logically as his hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell) did so often in Committee. The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) was not as

effective as usual. He referred to areas being perhaps not so large once the Royal Commission has reported. But that is not the point. Indeed, the areas can be quite different. The result may be that authorities set up for certain areas will find themselves operating in completely different ones. Surely that is the relevant consideration.
Having re-examined the reasons given by the then Minister in Committee, I am still not convinced that she really believed in the necessity of these authorities. She said she wished to have democratic control locally and that this was being circumvented by the Royal Commission. But that is not a good approach for a good democrat. She said that setting up the authorities was the only way to stop traffic in these areas becoming snarled up—her word, not mine, for I dislike it. But that approach of hers is ludicrous.
Traffic problems are a quite separate consideration. Snarling up in conurbations will not be solved by the Bill. Traffic problems need discussion separately and without delay—certainly not the delay caused by the size of this Bill. The right hon. Lady referred to the setting up of the authorities as being
… an ad hoc solution, pending the reorganisation of local government…. This is an interim solution to meet an interim situation…."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee F, 7th February, 1968, c. 472–3.]
How can these vast authorities be an interim solution? Large sums of money will be spent on them. The Minister will have power not only to set them up in the four areas we are discussing but all over the country, although not in London, happily. Hon. Members opposite have prayed in aid the fact that the G.L.C. is setting up an authority. But it is a very different type of authority. There is no question there of local railways entering into the picture.

Mr. Swingler: What is being done in London is by agreement between my right hon. Friend and the G.L.C. The details, including any details about railways, have not yet been set out. They will be set out in a White Paper that will result from the discussion some time in the next few weeks.

Mr. Berry: It is news to me that the railways are to come into this in London.


Obviously, the hon. Gentleman has seen the documents. I am still prepared to bet with him, however, that the railways are not part of the scheme. No one has said a good word for this idea. It is a disgraceful proposition. The sooner we put off this part of the Bill the better.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: We are all anxiously awaiting the Report of the Royal Commission on Local Government. We do not know what it will report, and the range is wide. It could recommend a number of large regional authorities, or a much larger number of city authorities. I share the view of the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) who said that he hoped that the recommendation would be a small number of large regional authorities. The proposition that we are asked to accept in this Amendment—if it has any sense at all, which I doubt—is that we are to wait before any action is taken, until the Royal Commission has reported. What is the object of the exercise?
Is it suggested that whatever the Royal Commission recommends will automatically be the right size for a P.T.A.? If it is not the proposition, what is the sense in this Amendment? If we are to await the Report there must be some reason, unless it is, as I suspect, purely a delaying tactic. If we are to await the Report, the reason must be that the Report is expected to make some recommendation which will have some relevance to the question of transport. What hon. Gentlemen opposite are saying is that they know in advance what sort of area the Royal Commission will recommend and this will be the sort of area relevant to transport. If this is not the case there can be no object in the exercise.
This is a "phoney" Amendment. There is nothing in it. If we take "London", the last time I looked there were nine "Londons". Among them are the Transport London, the Metropolitan Police London, the Metropolitan Water Board London, the G.L.C. London, the Inner London Education Authority London, the Electricity Board London, the Gas Board London. [An HON. MEMBER: "The London Telephone Directory."] They are all different shapes and sizes drawn up for different functions. This is

the case with transport. No one would suggest that the Royal Commission's recommendations about local government will automatically have any relevance to transport. It is an absurdity, and I hope that the House will throw this Amendment out, as it thoroughly deserves.

Mr. R. Gresham Cooke: A few months ago I was listening to the radio and there came over the air the dulcet tones of a former Minister of Transport, now Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity. She was addressing herself to the women of Britain. She said: "Do you want to stand in the rain, waiting for buses. Do you want to strap-hang in overcrowded buses? Of course you do not. Do you want to have all those buses swishing past you, covering you with mud as you stand by the side of the road? The answer is that if all the buses in the conurbation in which you live are under one ownership everything will be all right. I will introduce a Bill which will put the buses under one ownership and all these problems will be solved."
Three days later I was with the Estimates Sub-Committee in Liverpool. We were trying to catch the train to London at about five o'clock in the evening. In front of us were 20 huge red buses, delaying our progress, I watched this, and being an open-minded man, I thought of the Minister of Transport. I thought, "Here is a disorganised unco-ordinated bus service. If only they were under one ownership, everything would be all right." But, as we wormed our way through this covey, this conglomeration of buses, we found that every one of them was already under the ownership of the one authority.
11.0 p.m.
So, to my mind, the whole basis of this ridiculous argument that we should put the buses under one ownership fell completely to the ground because when I went to one of the authority areas which were going to be put into the right pigeonhole I found that the buses already belonged to one authority and that they were already late and already crowded, and that the solution to the problem, as my hon. Friend indicated, lay more in traffic engineering and not in any ownership by one authority.

Mr. Leadbitter: A new term has crept in at the latter part of our debate, and that is "brevity". I thank the hon. Member for his brevity. It is a change because we have discussed this particular matter in Committee for an overlong time. I cannot understand why the hon. Member for Tavistock (Mr. Michael Heseltine) has not repeated his performance—

Mr. Manuel: He did.

Mr. Leadbitter: Yes, but not in the way in which he did it upstairs. He must admit that we went into this very deeply and very carefully.
The hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) made a very great mistake when he referred to the minutes of the Association of Municipal Corporations. He took out of these minutes, in order to suit the purpose of his argument in support of this kind of Amendment, some letter which referred to transport associations.
What he did not say to the Committee upstairs, and what has not been said here tonight, was that this was a letter within the minutes of the Association of Municipal Corporations. I reminded him and his colleagues—and indeed the whole of the Committee—that the conclusions of the Association of Municipal Corporations on this subject were what we should direct our minds to.
The fact is that the Association of Municipal Corporations does not oppose the setting up of P.T.As. On two grounds hon. Members opposite have challenged my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield). On the one hand, they put a question to him arising out of the context of Tory-controlled councils, and the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell) referred to what was the opinion of Labour-controlled councils.
The answer to both questions is quite simple—that both these types of authorities are represented on the Association of Municipal Corporations, and the Association has made it quite clear in the minutes of January this year that it is not opposed to P.T.As. On the contrary, the Association said it considered that as a matter of urgency P.T.As should be set up in the conurbations.
I admit that outside the area of the conurbations it has some reservations. Nevertheless—as the Minister of State said upstairs and I hope it will be repeated here—on the very serious problem of congestion in our cities and towns, on the overlapping of services, on the lack of integration as far as schedules are concerned, there is a great need for integration and it is foolhardy for hon. Members opposite to talk in terms of waiting for the local boundary recommendations.
The Royal Commission will be dealing with a vast range of things other than transport. It will be concerned with the social services within the local authority set-up in this country. The transport aspect is completely outside that sort of consideration, and it is a matter of some urgency.
There is no question but that in the conurbations there is a major and urgent matter to be settled, and the agreement the Minister has had with the G.L.C. has already indicated that all responsible people agree that one cannot wait for the recommendations of the Royal Commission, which is working under terms of reference much wider than this. So I suggest to hon. Members opposite that this debate could well have been very brief on that account. [Interruption.] I have looked at the time. The hon. Member for Worcester looked at the clock, but I spotted the time I got up. Hon. Members spent a considerable amount of time on this subject, and they were defeated hands down, because the urgency of the problem is such that no Government could wait for the Royal Commission's Report.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: The hon. Member has finished, I gather?

Mr. Leadbitter: I have not. I sat down because I thought I was going to have an interesting intervention in my speech.
I want to impress upon hon. Members opposite that long before the Bill was printed and long before the Standing Committee sat, and spent 210 hours on the Bill, there were long discussions between the Ministry and the local authorities on transport matters and others apart from Clause 9, and the results of those discussions have been translated in


practical terms in the Bill. Hon. Members opposite have not said so much about Clause 9(2) which says:
Before making any order under subsection (1)"—
which sets up P.T.As—
the Minister shall consult with every such local authority as aforesaid".

Mr. Peter Walker: On a point of order. The hon. Member is now discussing a part of these provisions which has absolutely nothing to do with the Amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): It sems to me that the hon. Member's argument is relevant to the Amendment.

Mr. Leadbitter: I think that if I had dealt at length with subsection (2) I would have been ruled out of order. I mentioned it only in passing in support of the submission that it is relevant to the operation of subsection (1).
The Amendment suggests that nothing shall be done till the Royal Commission reports. From my experience in local government I can tell hon. Members opposite that problems are not resolved by sitting; back and waiting and doing nothing. Indeed, conflicts can arise between one' local authority and another, no matter what social service may be involved, and sometimes those battles are ended only by the Government stepping in. Hon. Members should look at this matter in practical terms. Is there an urgent problem to deal with? Is there congestion in the conurbations? The A.M.C. says, "Yes." The most authoritative opinion says, "Yes"—except hon. Members opposite.

Mr. Peter Walker: Since the hon. Member has quoted the A.M.C. will he explain how it is that in the January minutes of the General Purposes Committee of the A.M.C. the words are used,
Our attitude remains that, fundamentally, the establishment of passenger transport authorities should await the reorganisation of local government following the report of the Royal Commission."?

Mr. Leadbitter: I invite the hon. Gentleman to turn the page and read the following paragraph, in which the A.M.C. says that it considers as a matter of urgency the question of not opposing P.T.As. in the conurbations. Certainly

it has some reservations outside that. But, to establish that the A.M.C. accepts the principle of P.T.A.s, will he turn the page and read the next paragraph?

Mr. Peter Walker: We are debating— [HON. MEMBERS: "Read it."]—Certainly not. I recognise that, once again, the hon. Gentleman is endeavouring to filibuster. I have no intention of going out of order by reading arguments for or against the setting up of P.T.A.s. The Amendment is concerned with whether we should await the forthcoming proposals for local government reform. We have the support of the A.M.C. Hon. Gentlemen opposite do not.

Mr. Leadbitter: If he turns the page, the hon. Gentleman will see that, in effect, the A.M.C. has established clearly and distinctly that it supports the principle of P.T.A.s, and it says that it is a matter of urgency for the conurbations. The principle is not in question. However, we are a complex and highly industrialised community, and there are bound to be reasonable reservations outside the general areas of urgency. I ask the hon. Member for Worcester again to read the paragraph over the page. If he will not do it, I will get the relevant minutes and ask one of my hon. Friends to read it. But the hon. Gentleman should read it. [HON. MEMBERS: "It is out of order."] The last thing that I want to do is to be out of order. But the hon. Gentleman has read from the minutes. If it is suggested that he is seeking to mislead the House, in fairness to both sides, he ought to read the paragraph on the next page.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: It is not pleasant to open an intervention on a personal note, but I think that the hon. Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. Leadbitter) should stop insulting the House with this double-talk—

Mr. Leadbitter: I hope that the hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls), who is reasonable from time to time, will not press the suggestion that I have insulted the House. I have asked for a matter of fact to be read to the House, and nothing more.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: I am not on the point about whether the relevant paragraph should be read. However, if an hon. Member on one side of the House adduces an argument, supporting it with


a quotation from a paper, and an hon. Member on the other side wants to contradict the point made with the aid of a further quotation, he ought to read the passage himself.

Mr. Leadbitter: I have read it myself, of course, I would not ask the hon. Member for Worcester to read it unless I had read it myself.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: The hon. Member for The Hartlepools ought to let the House have it from his mouth, and not ask my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester to read it. However, I have charged him with double-talk, and we have had prolonged double-talk from him. Earlier, we had a charge of filibustering. The hon. Gentleman is guilty of that. He ought to take a lesson from the youngest hon. Member in the House, the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield) who, when he was found to be on the wrong track, admitted it. He suggested that Conservative and Labour councillors were in favour of P.T.As. When he was corrected, he admitted that he was wrong—

Mr. Leadbitter: rose—

Sir Harmar Nicholls: The hon. Gentleman is trying to come back again—

Mr. Leadbitter: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I must seek your protection. If I have said anything that I ought to withdraw, with great respect, that kind of Ruling should come from you.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It certainly will. That is not a point of order. Sir Harmar Nicholls.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: I will leave the hon. Member for The Hartlepools.—[An HON. MEMBER: "Yes, leave him alone."] —I am concerned about the Government. Will they never learn? If they publish the interim report that the Minister of Technology wants to put out, in which they admit all their weaknesses and failures of the last three years, the one thing that they have admitted time and time again is their bad timing. They have made wrong and stupid decisions on matters of fundamental importance, but in addition the timing has been bad. Have they not learned the lesson that timing is as important as the principle

behind an argument? Perhaps I might have the attention of the Minister of State, because he represents the Department.
11.15 p.m.
Timing is one of the most important matters if it is to be a reasonable Government. The arguments adduced so far have made it clear that even if the setting up of P.T.As is the right solution and that they should be put into practice for the good of transport, the Government should realise that the time that that idea is brought in is equally important.
The message from the Amendment speaks for itself. We do not know who will bring in the reform of local government boundaries. My hon. Friend the Member for Tavistock (Mr. Michael Heseltine) was asked whether he would speak on behalf of the Conservative Opposition and say that we would see that there was local government reform. Everybody in this House knows that in the near future, whatever the views of the two political parties, there will be local government reform. We know that, following the Maud Commission, the boundaries of local authorities will be broadened. Realising that within the boundaries of any form of local government transport is an important ingredient, the least we can do, before we set down the pattern and build the framework for the sort of transport system we want, we should wait to see what the local government boundaries will be. It is a matter of which should come first.
Hon. Gentlemen opposite have suggested that we should set up the pattern of transport and let local government boundaries more or less follow that pattern. That is the only logical explanation of their argument. It is abundantly clear that if we want something which will be lasting, if we do not always want to be messing about with the transport system that we want and the size of the organisations within it, we should wait to see what the new local government boundaries are to be. I believe that the words of the Amendment speak for themselves.
Until about a quarter of an hour ago, only people outside London appeared to be concerned about this bad timing. Londoners seemed to be reasonably


happy that they knew where they were going, because they were not included in the terms of the Bill. But about a quarter of an hour ago the hon. Gentleman frightened the Londoners. This leak about a White Paper that is to come out which will set up some new pattern of aligning the railways with the road transport system in London will frighten my hon. Friends. Was it a leak? Did the hon. Gentleman intend to say what he did? If he intended to tell us about what is to happen to London which is a reasonably important part of the United Kingdom, we should have had it in more detail. It ought not to have been slipped out like that. I believe that the hon. Gentleman has upset the confidence of many people inside London who thought that they were being saved from the bad timing which is implicit in this part of the Bill.
I will not follow the filibustering lead of the hon. Member for The Hartlepools. I merely say that if the Government recognise the importance of timing—and some of the trouble that they have had ought to have imprinted its importance on their mind—they should withdraw this part of their new machinery until they see what the new local government boundaries are. The Commission is sitting and we know that it will report. Quite apart from the Commission, we also know that the force and march of events make it absolutely essential that there will be different and bigger local government boundaries.

Mr. Harry Howarth: How does the hon. Gentleman know?

Sir Harmar Nicholls: The hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield), I think, asks how I know. He should be more worried than the Government. He is the youngest Member for this House. One would hope that the young Members of the Government party would be the ones looking to the future. The hon. Gentleman is as doctrinaire as all the others.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: I did not say it.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: If it was not the hon. Gentleman, I withdraw what I said.

Mr. Huckfield: The hon. Gentleman should consult his hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward

M. Taylor) who said that I was a Stone Age Socialist.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: My father told me that there were young men of all ages, and old men of all ages. The hon. Gentleman is like Keir Hardie's first platoon man. That has got me worried. The Government should face the fact that the transport machine ought to fit into the local government boundaries, and they ought therefore to delay the implementation of this part of the Bill until we see what the new boundaries are.

Mr. Swingler: Apart from the speech of the hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls), to which I shall return in a moment, the discussion has evoked strong memories of Standing Committee F. The hon. Member for Nantwich (Mr. Grant-Ferris) will recall that the most unexpected Amendments contained the seeds of great debates which went on for longer than predicted. I hope that if I reply briefly, as I think I should because there are many Amendments with which hon. Members wish to deal, I shall not be accused of not having dotted every i and crossed every t, as happens when one abbreviates one's speech.
It does not particularly concern him, and therefore I can understand why the hon. Member for Peterborough did not understand my reference to the London situation in my interpolation in the speech of the hon. Member for Southgate (Mr. Berry). The hon. Gentleman said that the Greater London Council was proceeding to set up a transportation authority in London. The position is that my right hon. Friend's predecessor came to an agreement with the leaders of the G.L.C. that, since in London we have a nationalised bus undertaking, and a nationalised underground transport system, but we have a situation which does not give us the virtues of a transport authority, there should be an agreement—which will involve legislation by Parliament—to make the G.L.C. into the transportation authority.
The purpose of my intervention was simply to warn hon. Members that since that agreement was announced last December between my right hon. Friend's predecessor and the G.L.C. there have been many discussions about details to


implement the decision to make the G.L.C. into the transport authority for London. I think that hon. Gentlemen would be wise to await the forthcoming White Paper before making any pronouncements on details.
I am saying no more than that as it is obvious that the present London Transport Board is not just a bus authority, but also runs trains. The G.L.C, if it becomes the transport authority, will become responsible for running the trains, but it will not make sense not to provide for a proper relationship between it and British Railways in view of the important commuter catchment areas around London. All those matters have been discussed in detail in preparation for the White Paper which will be put before the House in the near future with proposals for legislation. I say that to explain what I had in mind.

Mr. Lubbock: When does the Minister expect the White Paper to be published?

Mr. Swingler: In the next few weeks; before the end of June.
Perhaps I might reply to the debate by answering four questions. I do not think that I need deal with the speech of the hon. Member for Tavistock (Mr. Michael Heseltine), because he suggested that it was a wrecking Amendment. He did not argue, as some other hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) did, the merits, such as they are, of the Amendment. He argued, as we have done across the Committee for many weeks, against the P.T.As. as such, and I hope that I understand now— if I do not I never will—that he objects root and branch to the whole concept and details of what we have proposed. He therefore, naturally, argues for postponement, in the hope that that will kill them altogether. That is understandable from hon. Gentlemen who deeply and passionately oppose P.T.As.
Others wonder whether, although they might be viable, this is the right time to introduce P.T.As. The point is not just a postponement until the Report of the Royal Commission, but, in the words of the Amendment, until
… the reorganisation of local government shall have been implemented
following its Report. But should we wait at all? Is not the traffic situation in our

great towns so congested that we should not wait? Our answer is not to take opinion polls but to act.
Is not one of the most important contributions to tackling urban traffic congestion the improvement, or at least the prevention of the deterioration, of public transport? Some hon. Gentlemen do not think so: they think that public transport has no future and should be allowed to deteriorate, but we think that the two are connected and that the improvement of public transport would be an important contribution to the relief of urban congestion. Ever since I have been at the Ministry, people outside, and hon. Members, have complained, "Why is something not done about the Buchanan Report on Traffic in Towns?" It is a long time since we received it and there have been many representations about it. One answer is that the machinery does not exist so long as there is fragmentation in the planning of the highway network and traffic engineering divorced from the planning of transport. We do not make the necessary progress in tackling congestion—

Mr. Peter Walker: But the hon. Gentleman will surely agree that the P.T.A.s will not possess these powers, that the local authorities will retain planning and traffic engineering powers, while the P.T.As. will have public transport powers. So what the hon. Gentleman is doing is creating the very fragmentation which he is talking about.

Mr. Swingler: In spite of what the hon. Gentleman has said in the country, the P.T.As. are a projection of local government, of the local authorities which have the major highway and traffic management powers. That is why they are designed in this form, and why it is important to create them in the most congested areas. They will become focal points for the planning of land use, transportation, traffic engineering and the highway network. They will be the representatives of the local authorities which have these powers. That is why they will be mainly composed of local authority representatives. We discussed almost ad nauseam in Committee the framework of the P.T.As. and their composition, with local government representatives, people from authorities with highway and traffic powers and so on. In the congested areas it is urgent that something is done, and


although at a later date we must perhaps adapt what is done to any decisions of Parliament to reorganise local government, we cannot wait to establish these authorities until that time.

11.30 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Rippon: I am almost beside myself with rage at the Minister's remarks about what he imagines happens in local government. Perhaps hon. Members who served on the Standing Committee went over this matter many times, but if they had to listen to the sort of stuff the hon. Gentleman has just been serving up, I am not surprised that the Government have not made better progress with the Bill.
Some hon. Gentlemen opposite seem to think that this is a wrecking Amendment—[HON. MEMBERS: "It is."]—but it is not. This is a vital issue to those in local government and what we are heading for if we are not careful is a monumental shambles. The position will not be helped by the facile and inadequate observations of the Minister about London. One Labour councillor in Wigan has described the Government's proposals as "a load of codswallop". I cannot understand why the Government will not accept the Amendment. There is bitter and consistent opposition to these proposals from local authorities and it would be absolute madness, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Mr. Awdry) said, to introduce these passenger transport authorities before the Royal Commission has reported on the reorganisation of local government.
The Association of Municipal Corporations has made it clear that its members would prefer the whole matter to be held over until the Commission has reported. The furthest that they have gone is to say that they would be prepared to see some sort of passenger transport authorities now, provided that they could be integrated within the present local government structure provided that this could also be integrated into the future structure and provided that such authorities began as—passenger transport planning, advisory and coordinating bodies. The Association has made it clear that these bodies cannot, in absolute isolation, consider traffic problems. They must be linked with land use planning and the provision of major highways. 
Socialist, Liberal and Conservative councillors throughout the country hold strong feelings on this subject. It is a local government matter and people in local authorities are fed up with this dictatorship from Whitehall. At the whim of the Government—

Mr. Kenneth Marks: Mr. Kenneth Marks (Manchester, Gorton) rose—

Mr. Rippon: —which is sustained only by the payroll vote—[Interruption.] Hon. Gentlemen opposite should accept that it is wrong to set up ad hoc bodies which will not be responsible to or representative of local opinion or control but will merely be creatures of the Minister.

Mr. Marks: Since the right hon. and learned Gentleman has been speaking of dictatorship, is he aware that Manchester City Council, through a sub-committee which was set up specifically to examine this matter, through its Parliamentary Committee and other committees submitted amendments, having carefully studied the matter, but has approved the Government's view, particularly on the question of the P.T.A.s, but that at the instigation of the Conservative Central Office—[HON. MEMBERS: "TOO long."] I have a letter with me from the clerk— [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): Order. That intervention is much too long.

Mr. Rippon: This House must take note of the Newcastle City Council, Liverpool City Council, Manchester and Birmingham views. As the hon. Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. Leadbitter) knows, some Socialist authorities have already had reservations on this matter. Local authorities as a whole, expressing their views through the Association of Municipal Corporations and other bodies, have made quite clear that they do not like and do not want the Government's present policies. The reason is clear—they do not want continued dictatorship from Whitehall by the Minister.
The Government's White Paper on Public Transport and Traffic stated that local public transport should be a matter for local rather than central government. When they first considered the Bill, local authorities thought that was what the Government had in mind, but this proposal will not help local government.


Although six-sevenths will be from local authorities, a seventh of the members will be appointed by the Minister, who will have the greatest powers.
Many local authorities which have public transport will have their municipal undertakings compulsorily acquired without compensation. That could never happen under any form of reorganisation suggested by the Royal Commission or by either side of the House. It is all very well to talk about an integrated transport plan, but that has nothing to do with the ownership provisions which the Bill has in mind. In the passenger transport authorities as proposed the majority of powers of local authorities will be taken away and given to the Minister in Whitehall.
I do not want to analyse individually the 23 or more separate powers the Minister claims, but some relate directly to this Amendment. I understand that the Minister may set up a passenger transport authority in any area of Great Britain if it is considered expedient and local authorities will have no right of public inquiry. They will not be able by a public inquiry to review the boundaries drawn by the Minister. That could not possibly happen under any proposals for reorganisation of local government which anyone might bring forward.
As the Bill stands, the extent of the power to precept on the rates and impose a charge on the rates outside the control of the council will be completely in the hands of the Minister. No reorganisation of local government which anyone can conceive of would allow that to continue. The annual accounts will be presented in a manner which the Minister directs. Investment grants will all be at the discretion of the Minister. The Minister will be the sole arbiter in any arrangement between passenger transport authorities and the railways. The Minister will have complete power over capital expenditure. All these matters, in relation to rates, power to levy precepts and all these provisions, will be in the hands of the Minister and not of the local passenger authorities.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: On a point of order. I have been trying to follow the right hon. and learned Gentleman, but I cannot see what this has to do with the Amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That must be the fault of the hon. Member. Everything that the right hon. and learned Member has said seems perfectly relevant to this Amendment.

Mr. Rippon: I should be wasting the time of the House if I tried to explain to the hon. Member in further detail the view of this side of the House and the great majority of local authorities, as represented through the Association of Municipal Corporations and individual councils, that it would be utterly wrong to impose on the people of the country passenger transport authorities which are the creatures of the Minister and which will exercise powers they could not claim to maintain under any reorganised system of local government that anyone who has given evidence to the Royal Commission could possibly conceive of.
As the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) said, there is no popular support of any kind for the Government's proposals. Not one word, apart from those on the payroll vote opposite, has been said in favour of these proposals. I therefore hope that the Amendment will be carried by a large majority.

Mr. Peter Mahon: The right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) should not have used the words "monumental ignorance". That has been displayed in no uncertain manner by hon. Members opposite. They have demonstrated, not only their ignorance, but also the fact that they have not considered the contents of the Bill. I say this with sincerity because, together with the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Awdry), I agreed to sponsor several of the Amendments put forward by the Association of Municipal Corporations. I would not have done so had I thought that the Association was utterly opposed to the Bill. There was nothing in the recommendations which the Association made or in the Amendments which it submitted which indicated that it was against the Bill.
The more that hon. Members opposite succeed in local government elections— they have succeeded in recent weeks in no uncertain manner—the more their confidence seems to diminish. We cannot wonder at that. We have no general quarrel with their outlook. Perhaps we can now understand why Lord Derby is


anxious to give them a hand, apart from other considerations that are uppermost in his mind. To delay the setting up of the P.T.As until we have the proposals on regionalisation is a weak-kneed proposal, because we on this side believe that the changes that it is necessary to make are imperative and will not brook delay. Procrastination in this important matter is the thief of time.
The hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) suggested that local government is creaking and is absolutely obsolete. I do not know where he has been. I do not know whether before he came here he had any experience of local government.

Mr. Lubbock: I was a member of the Orpington Urban District Council.

Mr. Mahon: I am delighted to receive that enlightenment. Even from an ex-member of an urban district council, it is a scathing indictment. We do not believe it. We believe that local government is as good as central government has allowed it to be. The Conservative Government for many years did not give local government the encouragement it deserved. Any criticism of local government is a criticism of central government itself.
The hon. Member for Chippenham said, as I understood, the hon. Members on this side are deploying delaying tactics. I do not agree. We have tried to be very objective today, despite the

Division No. 175.]
AYES
[11.50 p.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)


Astor, John
Bryan, Paul
Digby, Simon Wingfield


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n')
Buchanan-Smith,ANck(Angus,N&amp;M)
Dodds-Parker, Douglas


Awdry, Daniel
Bullus, Sir Eric
Doughty, Charles


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Burden, F. A.
Drayson, G. B.


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Campbell, Cordon
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward


Batsford, Brian
Carlisle, Mark
Eden, Sir John


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Elliot, Capt. Water (Carshalton)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos, &amp; Fhm)
Cary, Sir Robert
Elliott, R.W.(N'c'tte-upon-Tyne, N.Z


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Channon, H. P. G.
Emery, Peter


Bessell, Peter
Chichester-Clark, R.
Errington, Sir Eric


Biffen, John
Clark, Henry
Fair, John


Biggs-Davison, John
Clegg, Walter
Fisher, Nigel


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Cooke, Robert
Fietcher-Cooke, Charles


Black, Sir Cyril
Corfield, F. V.
Fortescue, Tim


Blaker, Peter
Costain, A. P.
Foster, Sir John


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)


Body, Richard
Crouch, David
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.


Bossom, Sir Clive
Crowder, F. P.
Gibson-Watt, David


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Cunningham, Sir Knox
Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Currie, G. B. H.
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)


Braine, Bernard
Dalkeith, Earl of
Glyn, Sir Richard


Brewfe, John
Dance, James
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Goodhart, Philip


Bromley-Daveiport. Lt.-Col. SirWalter
d'Avigdor-Coldemid, Sir Henry
Goodhew, Victor

fact that there has been tremendous ill-informed provocation on the part of hon. Members opposite.

11.45 p.m.

One hon. Member opposite—[An HON. MEMBER: "A filibuster."] No. I am not filibustering, and I shall not speak much longer. I must refer to what one hon. Member said in referring to the Liverpool bus strike. If anything which happened in recent months proves the dire necessity for this sort of change, the Liverpool bus strike is it. Liverpool people feel that, if it had been London people who had been so afflicted, there would have been more direct action taken on their behalf. The poor benighted people of Liverpool, who have been walking to and from work, the old, the sick and the infirm having to walk to and from hospital—

Mr. Gresham Cooke: If the hon. Gentleman is referring to my remarks about Liverpool, I must tell him that I never mentioned the strike. I was referring to the time when the strike was not operating and the buses were running.

Mr. Mahon: The hon. Gentleman knows what he said, and so do I. I have not dreamed this up. It was a most unfortunate reference. However, I promised that I would not speak for very long, and I shall not.

Question put, That the Amendment be made: —

The House divided: Ayes, 232, Noes 285.

Gower, Raymond
MacArthur, lan
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Grant, Anthony
Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross &amp; Crom'ty)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)



Grant-Ferris, R.
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Royle, Anthony


Gresham Cooke, R.
Macleod, Rt. Hn. lain
Russeff, Sir Ronald


Grieve, Percy
McMaster, Stanley
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.


Gurden, Harold
Maddan, Martin
Scott, Nicholas


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Maginnis, John E.
Scott-Hopkins, James


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Sharples, Richard


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Marten, Neil
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Maude, Angus
Silvester, Frederick


Harrison, Brian (Maidon)
Mawby, Ray
Sinclair, Sir George


Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Harvie Anderson, Miss
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)


Hawkins, Paul
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Speed, Keith


Hay, John
Miscampbell, Norman
Stainton, Keith


Heald, Rt. Hn. S r Lionel
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Monro, Hector
Stodart, Anthony


Heseltine, Michael
Montgomery, Fergus
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)


Higgins, Terence L.
More, Jasper
Tapsell, Peter


Hiley, Joseph
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Hill, J. E. B.
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Taylor, Edward M.(C'gow,Cathcart)


Hirst, Geoffrey
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Temple, John M.


Holland, Philip
Murton, Oscar
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Hooson, Emlyn
Neave, Airey
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Hordern, Peter
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Tilney, John


Hornby, Richard
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Howell, David (Guildford)
Nott, John
Man Straubenzee, W. R.


Hunt, John
Onslow, Cranley
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Vickers, Dame Joan


Iremonger, T. L.
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Wainwright. Richard (Colne Valley)


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Walker, Peter (Worcester)



Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Pardoe, John
Walters, Dennis


Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)
Webster, David


Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

Peel, John
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Percival, lan
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Peyton, John
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Kerby, Capt. Henry
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Kershaw, Anthony
Pink, R. Bonner
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Kimball, Marcus
Pounder, Rafton
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Kirk, Peter
Price, David (Eastteigh)
Wood Rt. Hn. Richard


Kitson, Timothy
Prior, J. M. L.
Woodnutt, Mark


Lambton, Viscount
Pym, Francis
Worsley, Marcus


Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Quennett, Miss J. M.
Wright, Esmond


Lane, David
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Wylie, N. R.


Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Younger, Hn. George


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David



Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Lloyd, lan (p'tsm'th, Langstone)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Mr. Bernard Weatherill and


Longden, Gilbert
Ridsdale, Julian
Mr. Reginald Eyre.


Lubbock, Eric
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey





NOES


Albu, Austen
Brooks, Edwin
Delargy, Hugh


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Dell, Edmund


Alldritt, Walter
Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Dempsey, James


Allen, Scholefield
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Dewar, Donald


Anderson, Donald
Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Diamond, Rt. Hn. John


Archer, Peter
Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Dickens, James


Armstrong, Ernest
Buchan, Norman
Dobson, Ray


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Doig, Peter


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Carmichael, Neil
Driberg, Tom


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Dunn, James A.


Barnes, Michael
Coe, Denis
Dunnett, Jack


Barnett, Joel
Coleman, Donald
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)


Baxter, William
Concannon, J. D.
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)


Bence, Cyril
Conlan, Bernard
Eadie, Alex


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Edwards, William (Merioneth)


Bidwell, Sydney
Crawshaw, Richard
Ellis, John


Binns, John
Cronin, John
English, Michael


Bishop, E. S.
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Ennals, David


Blackburn, F.
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Ensor, David


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Dalyell, Tam
Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)


Booth, Albert
Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Faulds, Andrew


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Fernyhough, E.


Boyden, James
Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Bradley, Tom
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Foley, Maurice


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipswich)







Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Luard, Evan
Price, William (Rugby)


Ford, Ben
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Probert, Arthur


Forrester, John
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Rankin, John


Fowler, Gerry
McBride, Neil
Rees, Merlyn


Fraser, John (Norwood)
McCann, John
Reynolds, G. W.


Freeson, Reginald
MacColl, James
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Galpern, Sir Myer
MacDermot, Niall
Richard, Ivor


Gardner, Tony
Macdonald, A. H.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Ginsburg, David
McCuire, Michael
Roberts, Gwrlym (Bedforshire, S.)


Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Robertston, John (Paisley)


Gregory, Arnold
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St.P'c'as)


Grey, Charles (Durham)
Mackintosh, John P.
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walthamstow, E.)


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Maclennan, Robert
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Roebuck, Roy


Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Rose, Paul


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
McNamara, J. Kevin
Ross, Rt. Hn. William



Hamling, William
MacPherson, Malcolm
Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)


Hannan, William
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Shaw, Arnold (llford, S.)


Harper, Joseph
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Sheldon, Robert


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Mallalieu, J.P.W.(Huddersfield, E.)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Haseldine, Norman
Manuel, Archie
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Hattersley, Roy
Mapp, Charles
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Hazell, Bert
Marks, Kenneth
Slater, Joseph


Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Marquand, David
Small, William


Heffer, Eric S.
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Spriggs, Leslie


Henig, Stanley
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael


Hooley, Frank
Maxwell, Robert
Stonehouse, John


Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Mayhew, Christopher
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Mendelson, J. J.
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Mikardo, lan
Swain, Thomas


Howie, W.
Millan, Bruce
Swingler, Stephen


Hoy, James
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Taverne, Dick


Huckfield, Leslie
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George


Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George


Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Moonman, Eric
Thornton, Ernest


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Tinn, James


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Tomney, Frank


Hunter, Adam
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Urwin T. W.


Hynd, John
Morris, John (Aberavon)
Varley, Eric G.


Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Moyle, Roland
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Murray, Albert
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Neal, Harold
Walker, Harold (Doneaster)


Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Newens, Stan
Wallace, George


Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n&amp;St.P'cras,S.)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby,S.)
Watkins David (Consett)


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Norwood, Christopher
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Oakes, Cordon
Weitzman David


Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Ogden, Eric
Wellbeloved, James


Johnson, Janus (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
O'Malley, Brian
Whitaker Ben


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Oram, Albert E.
White, MRS. Eirene


Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)
Orme, Stanley
Whitlock, William


Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Oswald, Thomas
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Judd, Frank
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Kelley, Richard
Owen, Will (Morpeth)
Wiliams, Clifford (Abertillery)



Kenyon, Clifford
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
Williams Mrs. Shipley (Hitchin)


Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, central)
Paget, R. T.
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Palmer. Arthur
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Lawson, George
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Wilson, Williams (Coventry, S.)


Leadbitter, Ted
Park, Trevor
Winnick, David


Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Lee, John (Reading)
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Woof, Robert



Lestor, Miss Joan
Pavitt, Laurence
Wyatt, Woodrow


Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Yates, Victor


Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred



Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Pentland, Norman
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)




Lipton, Marcus
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)
Mr. Harry Gourlay and


Lomas, Kenneth
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.
Mr. Alan Fitch


Loughlin, Charles
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)

Dr. Dickson Mabon: I beg to move Amendment No. 41, in page 13, line 12, to leave cut ' six ' and insert ' eight'.
I am sure that the paymasters of the Conservative Party must be immensely impressed by the fact that the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) is flagging and is unable to reply to the debates.
The Amendment is evidence of the Government's intention to try to improve the position laid down in the Bill. In Committee, the Opposition put down an Amendment which proposed that the minimum membership of the Passenger Transport Executive should be three. The hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell) may recall the argument which


took place in Committee. As a consequence of the debate in Committee, we thought it reasonable to look at this matter again. While we are still of the view that the minimum number laid down is right, we think it proper to raise the maximum membership from six to eight.
The right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) did not quite grasp the meaning and purpose of the authorities. Perhaps he was unaware that they will have large bus fleets and that they will be required to reach agreement with the Railways Board to keep railway services under review.

12 m.

Mr. Rippon: On the contrary. This is exactly what I was complaining about.

Dr. Mabon: The right hon. and learned Gentleman clearly does not understand how local authorities exercise their traffic management plans and their other responsibilities. They will be able to coordinate all these activities by this Amendment. It is, therefore, important to have not six but eight members on an authority. They will be required not only to keep railway services under review but to plan comprehensively, to make full use of technological advances and to develop passenger transport of all kinds. This involves not only roads but fixed tracks as well as activities in estuarial waters in places like Liverpool and Glasgow.
The authorities will wish to recruit a wide range of professional expertise to their executives—experts not only in transport and engineering, management and development but in accountancy, finance, economics and so on. We show by this Amendment that not only are we willing to listen to arguments but to look again at the reconstruction of the authorities and the executives.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: I beg to move Amendment No. 43, in page 13, line 25, to leave out 'representations' and to insert 'objections'

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this Amendment we can discuss the two following Amendments in the name of the hon. Gentleman, No. 44, in line 28, leave out from 'area' to 'but' in line 30, and No. 45, in line 38, at end insert:

(2A) (1) If there are no objections which the Minister is required to consider, or if all such objections are withdrawn, the Minister may proceed with the making of an order under subsection (1) of this section, which shall have the effect of designating an area a Passenger Transport Area.
(2) Where any objection under subsection (2) of this section is made and is not withdrawn, the Minister shall cause a public local inquiry to be held with respect thereto, and the Minister may, after considering the report of the person by whom the inquiry was held, make the order either in its original terms or subject to such amendments, additions or modifications as the Minister thinks fit.
(3) The amendments, additions or modifications referred to in paragraph (2) of this subsection may amount to amendments, additions modifications to or of the area to be designated or the establishment or functions of the Authority or the Executive.
(4) The Minister may with the consent of the Treasury pay out of moneys provided by Parliament to any person appointed to hold an inquiry for the purposes of this subsection such fees and allowances, and to persons giving evidence such allowances as he may with the consent of the Treasury determine.

Mr. Heseltine: Those who listened to our earlier discussions will realise the grave anxiety which exists about the authorities everywhere in the country except on the benches opposite. Before these proposals are implemented there should be a public inquiry in each area, which is what these Amendments would provide. As a result of a public inquiry locally, there would be the opportunity to make changes in the area of an authority, in its nature and in its functions.
This move has become necessary because of the partial nature of the consultations held by the right hon. Lady She visited the areas, explained her ideas, listened to questions, took no notice of what was said and left to put her original proposals into the Bill. This gave rise to the anxiety. The only way in which this situation can be brought home to the right hon. Gentleman— with whom we sympathise on his inheritance—is to lay it down that a public inquiry shall be held in each area to give full opportunity for the ventilation of the anxieties we have been warning the Government about ever since these proposals were published.
No two areas have the same problems in passenger transport. It is, therefore, ridiculous to set up identical authorities in each. Manchester, for example, is much larger than Newcastle and has different problems. This point has been made with great force by those running


the passenger transport undertakings in the areas. First of all, a public inquiry could reveal that the muddle embodied in this legislation does not fit the divergent necessities of two particular areas. Secondly, it would be possible for the ratepayers, who are expected to finance this new bureaucratic structure, to have their say as to what they think will emerge after they find out the likely increase in precept or rates necessary to finance these authorities. Thirdly, it will be possible for the local commercial interests to have a say about what they regard as a most unfair form of competition, which will be possible from the P.T.A.s.
If we were simply talking about the running of buses hitherto run by municipal authorities, it would not be possible for me to sustain this argument with such force, but when one remembers that embodied in Clause 10 are no less than 32 subsections, all giving different powers to P.T.A.s to indulge in activities, which, in many respects, have nothing to do with transport, one can understand why local commercial interests are gravely worried.
One has in mind taxi-owners, excursion tour operators, refreshment and buffet operators, people responsible for running garages, filling stations, selling spare parts, petrol and oil—all these people will now find themselves in competition with organisations financed by the ratepayers, and with no financial disciplines placed on them. These organisations are not expected to make a profit; they are expected, in their totality, to break even, and we all know that the result of that is invariably to impose a vast burden on the ratepayer. [AN HON. MEMBER: "Glib talk."] The hon. Member may say "glib talk" but these are the ratepayers who inflicted upon the Government the most humiliating debacle that have ever experienced.
The final suggestion made in favour of P.T.A.s is that they will, in some mystical way, co-ordinate transport services in the area. Those with the slightest knowledge of how transport has built up in these areas over the years, knows that the degree and sophisticated nature of coordination in these areas is very far advanced.
We probed deeply into this in Committee, to try to reveal where the gaps

were, but we could not find them. A public inquiry may bring home to the Ministers that the experience of the man on the spot is a great deal more relevant than that of the men from the Ministry of Transport. If these proposals, as we have constantly heard, are so much in the interests of the local people for whom they are apparently designed, what possible reason can there be for opposing a suggestion that the local people should be let into the secret, and given an opportunity to make their contribution before a final decision on the form of these authorities is made?

Mr. Marks: I was interested to hear the hon. Member for Tavistock (Mr. Michael Heseltine) talk about local opinion. When the City of Manchester decided to examine the Transport Bill —and at that time the council had a Conservative majority—it appointed a sub-committee of the Transport and the General and Parliamentary Committees to examine it and discuss it with the Minister. This sub-committee brought forward to the General and Parliamentary Committee its proposals, which were reasoned criticisms of the Bill. When these proposals came before the council, without warning, they were moved back, and later, rejection of the Bill was proposed.
I suggest that, after that examination by the knowledgeable and interested people in the city, a majority of them Conservatives, it was turned down at the instigation of the Conservative Central Office. In examining the Bill, and making recommendations, those councillors were acting as good Mancunians and good councillors. But that did not match with being good Conservatives, quite obviously.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: Will the hon. Member give way?

Mr. Marks: No, not yet.
I live in an urban district on the edge of Manchester which has six passenger transport authorities operating in its area and the local council and the local people have no say whatever in the running of anything. Under the proposals which have been put forward they will have a say, and they will welcome it.

Mr. John Pardoe: I rise to support the Amendment.


Whenever I see such a phrase in a Bill as "the Minister shall consult with" or "the Minister shall not make such an Order until he is satisfied that a reasonable opportunity exists ", I get a little worried about the processes of democracy.
These sort of phrases mean all things to all men, and I can envisage long arguments taking place about what was consultation, and what was reasonable opportunity. What is consultation in these matters to one side is anything but consultation to the other side.
I believe that a public inquiry would at least give the ghost of consultation some substance, some bones. People must be allowed and encouraged to take part in the decision-making processes of democracy, and that is why I cannot understand the Government's attitude to the Amendment already moved in Committee. I hope that we shall hear just why the Government are opposed to a public inquiry.
These matters are of fundamental importance to local people in these areas, and the Government should certainly accept a public inquiry. That is why I support the Amendment.

Mr. Swingler: Those hon. Members who heard me reply to an earlier Amendment will remember that I said the situation was urgent. I know that some hon. Members regard it with complacency and think that there is any amount of time to deal with it, and I said that this was obviously wrong when I proposed to the House that it would be wrong to wait for the reorganisation of local government.
Obviously, if we had that amount of time, arguments that we had time to indulge in inquiries and things of that order would be perfectly reasonable. But I have put forward the argument that arrangements for authorities to bring in policies of co-ordination are overdue, that the deterioration of public transport in the big cities of this country is

Division No. 176.]
AYES
[12.15 a.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Biffen, John


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Batsford, Brian
Biggs-Davison, John


Astor, John
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Goe. &amp; Fhm)
Black, Sir Cyril


Awdry, Daniel
Berry, Hn. Anthony
Blaker, Peter


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Bessell, Peter
Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

becoming so bad that it cannot wait, and that someone has to take responsibility for this.

One cannot shuffle it off from one body to the next. The person responsible is the Minister, who is responsible in turn to Parliament. There have to be consultations. The Minister has to hear the views of the operators' associations. But in the last resort the Minister must make an Order, and that Order can be challenged in Parliament. But on any Order made for the arrangement of P.T.As the situation in the big cities is not one that will wait for the protracted holding of inquiries, any more than it will wait for the chewing over of the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Local Government.

Mr. Peter Walker: The House wants to make progress because there are many more Amendments to be discussed and only two and a quarter hours remaining on this section of the Bill. But the reply of the Minister of State was totally unsatisfactory. It reeked of the proposition that the man in the Ministry knows better than the local people, and the Government are completely unwilling even to see that the local people have a right of public inquiry. Even in the Labour Government's 1947 Act, local authorities were given the right to a public inquiry.
So far as consultation is concerned, the Minister of State must know full well that in writing the Minister told certain local authorities that they would be consulted after the publication of the White Paper, and then, three days after publication of the White Paper and without any consultation, the Bill was published. He cannot, therefore, expect the local authorities to take very much notice of a vague phrase promising consultations.
I would certainly urge my hon. Friends to divide on this Amendment.

Question put, That the Amendment be made: —

The House divided: Ayes 228, Noes 277.

Body, Richard
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Bossom, Sir Clive
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Pardoe, John


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Hawkins, Paul
Peel, John


Braine, Bernard
Hay, John
Percival, lan


Brewis, John
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sr Lionel
Peyton, John


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Bromley-Davenport.Lt.-Col.SirWalter
Heseltine, Michael
Pink, R. Bormer


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Higgins, Terence L.
Pounder, Rafton


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Hiley, Joseph
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Bryan, Paul
Hill, J. E. B.
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Buchanan-Smith,Alick(Angus,N&amp;M)
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Qu'nt'n
Prior, J. M. L.


Bullus, Sir Eric
Holland, Philip
Pym, Francis


Burden, F. A.
Hooson, Emlyn
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Campbell, Gordon
Hordern, Peter
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Carlisle, Mark
Hornby, Richard
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Howell, David (Guildford)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Cary, Sir Robert
Hunt, John
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Channon, H. P. G.
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Ridsdale, Julian


Chichester-Clark, R.
Iremonger, T. L.
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Clark, Henry
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Clegg, Walter
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Cooke, Robert
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Russell, Sir Ronald


Corfield, F. V.
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Costaln, A. P.
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.



Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Scott, Nicholas


Crouch, David
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Scott-Hopkins, James


Crowder, F. P.
Kershaw, Anthony
Sharples, Richard


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Kimball, Marcus
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Currie, G B. H.
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Silvester, Frederick


Dalkeith, Earl of
Kirk, Peter
Sinclair, Sir George


Dance, James
Kitson, Timothy
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Davidson,James(Aberdeenshire,W.)
Lambton, Viscount
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Speed, Keith


Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
Lane, David
Stainton, Keith


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Stodart, Anthony


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Lloyd,Rt.Hn.Geoffrey(Sut'nC'dfield)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)


Doughty, Charles
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Tapsell, Peter


Drayson, G. B.
Longden, Gilbert
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Lubbock, Eric
Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)


Eden, Sir John
MacArthur, Ian
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Mackenzie,Alasdair(Ross&amp;Crom'ty)
Temple, John M.


Elliott,R.W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Emery, Peter
Macleod, Rt. Hn. lain
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Errington, Sir Eric
McMaster, Stanley
Tilney, John


Eyre, Reginald
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Farr, John
Maddan, Martin
van Straubenzec, W. R.


Fisher, Nigel
Maginnis, John E.
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Vickers, Dame Joan


Fortescue, Tim
Marten, Neil
Wainwrlght. Richard (Colne Valley)


Foster, Sir John
Maude, Angus
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Fraser,Rt.Hn.Hugh(St'fford&amp;Stone)
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Walters, Dennis


Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Weatherill, Bernard


Gibson-Watt, David
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Webster, David


Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan
Miscampbell, Norman
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Glyn, Sir Richard
Montgomery, Fergus
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
More, Jasper
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Goodhart, Philip
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Goodhew, Victor
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Gower, Raymond
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Wolrige-Cordon, Patrick


Grant, Anthony
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Grant-Ferri), R.
Murton, Oscar
Woodnutt, Mark


Cresham Cooke, R.
Neave, Airey
Worsley, Marcus


Grieve, Percy
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Wright, Esmond


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Wylie, N. R.


Gurden, Harold
Nott, John
Younger, Hn. George


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Onslow, Cranley



Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Mr. Hector Monro and




Mr. Anthony Royle,




NOES


Albu, Austen
Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Blackburn, F.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Barnes, Michael
Blenkinsop, Arthur


Alldritt, Walter
Barnett, Joel
Boardman, H. (Leigh)


Allen, Scholefield
Baxter, William
Booth, Albert


Anderson, Donald
Bence, Cyril
Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur


Archer, Peter
Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Boyden, James


Armstrong, Ernest
Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Braddock, Mrs. E. M.


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Bidwell, Sydney
Bradley, Tom


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Binns, John
Bray, Dr. Jeremy







Brooks, Edwin
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Orme, Stanley


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Oswald, Thomas


Brown, Bob(N'ctie-upcm-Tyne,W.)
Howie, W.
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Hoy, James
Owen, Will (Morpeth)


Brown, Hugh D. (C'gow, Provan)
Huckfield, Leslie
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)



Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey) 
Paget, R. T.


Buchan, Norman
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Palmer, Arthur


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Carmichael, Neil
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Park, Trevor


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Hunter, Adam
Parker, John (Dagsnham)


Coe, Denis
Hynd, John
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Coleman, Donald
Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Pavitt, Laurence



Concannon, J. D.
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Conlan, Bernard
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Pentland, Norman


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Jeger,Mrs.Lena(H'b'n &amp; St.Plcras,S.) 
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Crawshaw, Richard
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.


Cronin, John
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Price, William (Rugby)


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.) 
 Probert, Arthur


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)
Rankin, John


Dalyell, Tam
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Rees, Merlyn


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Judd, Frank
Reynolds, G. W.


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Kelley, Richard
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Kenyon, Clifford
Richard, Ivor


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Roberts, Gwllym (Bedfordshire, S.)


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Lawson, George
Robertston, John (Paisley)


Delargy, Hugh
Leadbitter, Ted
Robnison, Rt. Hn. Kennet (St.P'c'as)


Dell, Edmund
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walthamstow.E.)


Dempsey, James
Lee, John (Reading)
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Dewar, Donald
Lestor, Miss Joan
Roebuck, Roy


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Rose, Paul


Dickens, James
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Dobson, Ray
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)


Doig, Peter
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Shaw, Arnold (llford, S.)


Driberg, Tom
Lipton, Marcus
Sheldon, Robert


Dunn, James A.
Lomas, Kenneth
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Dunnett, Jack
Loughlin, Charles
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter) 
Luard, Evan
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e) 
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Eadie, Alex
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Slater, Joseph


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
McBride, Neil
Small, William


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
McCann, John
Spriggs, Leslie


Ellis, John
MacColl, James
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael


English, Michael
MacDermot, Niall
Stonehouse, John


Ennals, David
Macdonald, A. H.
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Ensor, David
McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Swain, Thomas


Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley) 
Mackintosh, John p.
Swingler, Stephen


Faulds, Andrew
Maclennan, Robert
Taverne, Dick


Femyhough, E.
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles) 
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George


Fletcher, Raymond (likeston)
McNamara, J. Kevin
Thornton, Ernest


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
MacPherson, Malcolm
Tinn, James


Foley, Maurice
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Tomney, Frank


Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipswich)
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Urwin, T. W.


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Varley, Eric G.


Ford, Ben
Mallalieu, J. P. W.(Huddersfield,E.)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Forrester, John
Manuel, Archie
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Fowler, Gerry
Mapp, Charles
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Marks, Kenneth
Wallace, George


Freeson, Reginald
Marquand, David
Watkins, David (Consett)


Galpern, Sir Myer
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Gardner, Tony
Maxwell, Robert
Weitzman, David


Ginsburg, David
Mayhew, Christopher
Wellbeloved, James


Gourlay, Harry
Mendelson, J. J.
Whitaker, Ben


Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Millan, Bruce
White, Mrs. Eirene


Gregory, Arnold
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Whitlock, William


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Williams, Alan Lee (Homchurch)


Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Hamling, William
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Hannan, William
Morris, John (Aberavon)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Harper, Joseph
Moyle, Roland
Winnick, David


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Murray, Albert
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Neal, Harold
Woof, Robert


Haseldine, Norman
Newens, Stan
Wyatt, Woodrow


Hattersley, Roy
Noel-Baker,Rt.Hn.Philip(Derby, s.) 
Yates, Victor


Hazell, Bert
Norwood, Christopher



Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Oakes, Gordon
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Heffer, Eric S.
Ogden, Eric
Mr. Charles Grey and


Hooley, Frank
O'Malley, Brian
Mr. Ernest G. Perry.


Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Oram, Albert E.

Mr. Marsh: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I beg to move,
That the proceedings of this day's sitting be suspended.

Division No. 177.]
AYES
[12.25 a.m.


Albu, Austen
Ennals, David
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Ensor, David
Lipton, Marcus


Alldritt, Walter
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Lomas, Kenneth


Allen, Scholefield
Fauids, Andrew
Loughlin, Charles


Anderson, Donald
Fernyhough, E.
Luard, Evan


Archer, Peter
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)


Armstrong, Ernest
Fletcher, Raymond (likeston)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson



Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
McBride, Neil


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Foley, Maurice
McCann, John


Bagler, Gordon A. T.
Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipswich)
MacColl, James


Barnes, Michael
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Va1e)
MacDermot, Niall


Barnett, Joel
Ford, Ben
Macdonald, A. H.


Baxter, William
Forrester, John
McKay, Mrs. Margaret


Bence, Cyril
Fowler, Gerry
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Mackintosh, John P.


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Freeson, Reginald
Maclennan, Robert


Bidwell, Sydney
Galpern, Sir Myer
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)


Binns, John
Gardner, Tony
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Blackburn, F.
Ginsburg, David
McNamara, J. Kevin


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Gourlay, Harry
MacPherson, Malcolm


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)


Booth, Albert
Gregory, Arnold
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Boyden, James
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Mallalieu, J.P.W.(Huddersfield,E.)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.
Manuel, Archie


Bradley, Tom
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Mapp, Charles


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Hamling, William
Marks, Kenneth


Brooks, Edwin
Hannan, William
Marquand, David


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Harper, Joseph
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Maxwell, Robert


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Mayhew, Christopher


Brown,Bob(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
Haseidine, Norman
Mendelson, J. J.


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; P'bury)
Hattersley, Roy
Mikardo, Ian


Buchan, Norman
Hazell, Bert
Millan, Bruce


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Carmichael, Neil
Heffer, Eric S.
Milne, Edward (Blyth)


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Hooley, Frank
Mitchell, R. c. (S'th'pton, Test)


Coe, Denis
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Coleman, Donald
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Concannon, J. D.
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Conlan, Bernard
Howie, W.
Morris, John (Aberavon)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Hoy, James
Moyle, Roland


Craddock, Ceorge (Bradford, S.)
Huckfield, Leslie
Murray, Albert


Crawshaw, Richard
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Neal, Harold


Cronin, John
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Newens, Stan


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Hughes,Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Noel-Baker,Rt.Hn.Philip(Derby,S.)


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Norwood, Christopher


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Hunter, Adam
Oakes, Gordon


Dalyell, Tam
Hynd, John
Ogden, Eric


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
O'Malley, Brian


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Oram, Albert E.


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Orme, Stanley


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Oswald, Thomas


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Jeger,Mrs.Lena(H'b'n&amp;St.P'cras,S.)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Owen, Will (Morpeth)


Delargy, Hugh
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Dell, Edmund
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Paget, R. T.


Dempsey, James
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Palmer, Arthur


Dewar, Donald
Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Park, Trevor


Dickens, James
Judd, Frank
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Dobson, Ray
Kelley, Richard
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Doig, Peter
Kenyon, Clifford
Pavitt, Laurence


Driberg, Tom
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Dunn, James A.
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Dunnett, Jack
Lawson, George
Pentland, Norman


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Leadbitter, Ted
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Eadie, Alex
Lee, John (Reading)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Lestor, Miss Joan
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Price, William (Rugby)


Ellis, John
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Probert, Arthur


English, Michael
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Rankin, John

Question put forthwith, pursuant to Order [12th December] (Sittings of the House):—

The House divided: Ayes 278, Noes 225.

Rees, Merlyn
Small, William
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Reynolds, G. W.
Spriggs, Leslie
Weitzman, David


Rhodes, Geoffrey
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael
Wellbeloved, James


Richard, Ivor
Storehouse, John
Whitaker, Ben


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.
White, Mrs. Eirene


Roberts, Gwilym (Bedforshire, S.)
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shiriey
Whitlock, William


Robertston, John (Paisley)
Swain, Thomas
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Robinson,Rt.Hn.Kenneth (St.P'c'as)
Swingler, Stephen
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Robinson, W. O. J. (Walthamstow, E.)
Taverne, Dick
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Roebuck, Roy
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Rose, Paul
Thornton, Ernest
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Ross, Rt. Hn. William
Tinn, James
Winnick, David


Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)
Tomney, Frank
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)
Urwin, T. W.
Woof, Robert


Sheldon, Robert
Varley, Eric G.
Wyatt, Woodrow


Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)
Yates, Victor


Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Walden, Brian (All Saints)



Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Wallace, George
Mr. Charles Grey and


Slater, Joseph
Watkins, David (Consett)
Mr. loan L. Evans.




NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Lancaster, Col. C. G.


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Elllott,n.W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Lane, David


Astor, John
Emery, Peter
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Errington, Sir Eric
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Awdry, Daniel
Eyre, Reginald
Lloyd,Rt.Hn.Geoffrey(Sut'nC'dfield)


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Farr, John
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Fisher, Nigel
Longden, Gilbert



Batsford, Brian
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Lubbock, Eric


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Fortescue, Tim
MacArthur, Ian


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. &amp; Fhm)
Foster, Sir John
Mackenzie,Alasdair(Ross&amp;Crom'ty)


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Fraser,Rt.Hn.Hugh(St'fford&amp;Stone)
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy


Bessell, Peter
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Macleod, Rt. Hn. lain


Biffen, John
Gibson-Watt, David
McMaster, Stanley


Biggs-Davison, John
Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, c.)
Maddan, Martin


Black, Sir Cyril
Glyn, Sir Richard
Maginnis, John E.


Blaker, Peter
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Goodhart, Philip
Marten, Neil


Body, Richard
Goodhew, Victor
Maude, Angus


Bossom, Sir Clive
Gower, Raymond
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L; C.


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Grant, Anthony
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Gresham Cooke, R.
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)


Braine, Bernard
Grieve, Percy
Miscampbell, Norman


Brewis, John
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Gurden, Harold
Montgomery, Fergus


Bromley-Davenport,Lt.-Col.SirWalter
Hall, John (Wycombe)
More, Jasper


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Bryan, Paul
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles


Buchanan-Smith,Alick(Angus,N&amp;M)
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Bullus, Sir Eric
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Murton, Oscar


Burden, F. A.
Hawkins, Paul
Neave, Airey


Campbell, Gordon
Hay, John
Nicholls, Sir Harmar


Carlisle, Mark
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Nobel, Rt. Hn. Michael


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Nott, John


Cary, Sir Robert
Heseltine, Michael
Onslow, Cranley



Channon, H. P. G.
Higgins, Terence L.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hiley, Joseph
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Clark, Henry
Hill, J. E. B.
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Clegg, Walter
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Pardoe, John


Cooke, Robert
Holland, Philip
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)


Corfield, F. V.
Hordern, Peter
Peel, John


Costain, A. P.
Hornby, Richard
Percival, Ian


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Howell, David (Guildford)
Peyton, John


Crouch, David
Hunt, John
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Crowder, F. P.
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Pink, R. Bonner


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Iremonger, T. L.
Pounder, Rafton


Currie, G. B. H.
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Dalkeith, Earl of
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Dance, James
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Prior, J. M. L.


Davidson,James (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Pym, Francis


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Kershaw, Anthony
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Kimball, Marcus
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Doughty, Charles
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Drayson, G. B.
Kirk, Peter
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Kitson, Timothy
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Eden, Sir John
Lambton, Viscount
Royle, Anthony







Russell, Sir Ronald
Tapsell, Peter
Wells, John (Maidstone)


St. John-Stevas, Norman
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow,Cathcart)
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Scott, Nicholas
Taylor, Frank (Most Side)
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Scott-Hopkins, James
Temple, John M.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Sharples, Richard
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Silvester, Frederick
Tilney, John
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Sinclair, Sir George
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.
Woodnutt, Mark


Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)
van Strauberueo, W. R.
Worsley, Marcus


Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Wright, Esmond


Speed, Keith
Vickers, Dame Joan
Wylie, N. R.


Stainton, Keith
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)
Younger, Hn. George


Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Walker, Peter (Worcester)



Stodart, Anthony
Walters, Dennis
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)
Webster, David
Mr. Bernard Weatherill and




 Mr. Hector Monro.

LEX GARAGES (DIVIDEND)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.— [Mr. Fitch.]

12.36 a.m.

Mr. Stratton Mills: I welcome this opportunity to discuss the Government's action regarding the dividend of Lex Garages, Ltd., and I am glad to see that the Financial Secretary is to reply. I do not wish to raise the wider questions of incomes policy or the Government's dividend policy, but prefer to keep to this specific case.
The Government's dividend policy seems to be spread over a number of documents, and it cannot but be repeated that it is voluntary, although the tone of some of the correspondence which I have seen—not in this case but in others —might lead one to think otherwise. The policy is contained in several White Paper, several speeches in the House, a letter to The Times Business News by the Financial Secretary and a Treasury Press statement for the guidance of editors. Since it is spread like this, perhaps the present confusion is not surprising. Consideration should be given to collecting it all in one document or White Paper, and perhaps going into some of the precedents established by Treasury action over the last month or two. This would be very useful.
The Lex case raises important matters of principle. It became clear to the directors of Lex Garages Ltd., that the profits for the year ended 31st December, 1967, would be sharply up. They wanted to take the company out of close company status, and they presumably had to do this before 31st December by selling off a block of shares to bring themselves

below the 65 per cent. shareholding requirement. On 27th October, they issued a Press statement—not to make an interim dividend announcement, but it would seem for the sole purpose of announcing a profit increase from £285,000 to an estimate of at least £650,000, for the year to 31st December, 1967, which later turned out ultimately to be £720,000 approximately. The point of the Press statement appears to have been to enable the brokers to place a large block of the directors' shareholding outside the market and at a price which reflected the profit and dividend increase. I emphasise this because it is vital to the argument. I am not arguing that Lex Garages comes within what the Financial Secretary has called the "hopes and expectation class" but, rather, that there was a firmer commitment for this reason and that the Press statement amounted to a clear and firm announcement.
Almost five-sixths of the company's year was over on 27th October and at that time the directors said that there would be a total dividend of "not less" than 24 per cent. This enabled the company's brokers to place this large block of shares outside the market. I imagine that the brokers, in going to the various institutions to place those shares, explained that the directors had to sell to move out of close company status, that there was a firm commitment, as announced in the Press statement, of the total dividend not being less than 24 per cent. as it had been clearly shown that the profits were sharply up. All this information enabled them to place the shares on a realistic basis reflecting the new situation.
I have given the facts in this case. It is interesting to consider the Treasury's


arguments. The Treasury's case is prob-baly best stated in the letter of the Financial Secretary to The Times Business Supplement on 18th April of this year. The letter stated:
If dividends had been formally recommended by Boards of Directors by March 19, they are treated as firm commitments which ought not to be frustrated. If specific dividend proposals had been given in prospectuses or comparable formal documents before Budget Day in connexion with capital issues, new flotations or takeovers and merger arrangements, these are also regarded as commitments. On the wrong side of the line lie the numerous examples of hopes and expectations expressed before Budget Day which had not been translated into Board recommendations or into the terms of some kind of offer document.
That appears to be a general statement of the case by the Financial Secretary. A more particular statement of the case appeared in a Parliamentary Answer on 14th May, when the Chief Secretary said that, in the case of the Lex Company, there was not a firm pre-Budget commitment.
Thus, the real purpose of this debate is to probe the Financial Secretary on the question of the Government's view of a commitment. Have they drawn the line in the right place and have they put Lex on the right or wrong side of the line? From my reading of the Financial Secretary's letter to The Times Business Supplement, I suggest that this is a very tortuous line, an arbitrary one which is both illogical and which gives rise to great anomalies and unfairness. For example, in the Lex case, where the board of directors on 27th October passed, and presumably minuted, this Press statement, the Government say there is no commitment. But had the board passed a formal resolution, instead of the Press statement, recommending a dividend, then, in the view of the Treasury, that would have been satisfactory and there would have been what the Financial Secretary calls a "formal recommendation". This is a fine distinction which appears to operate on the principle of pot luck.
To give another example of the arbitrariness of this, if the Lex directors had issued a prospectus to acquire a business, and in it had made certain forecasts or had issued a prospectus for the purpose of a rights issue, even if a much smaller numbers of shares were involved, that would, in the Government's view,

have been a commitment. But where the Lex directors issue a Press statement to enable them to place a very substantial block of shares outside the market, the Government say that there is no commitment. This is a very artificial distinction.
I question whether the Government are right to take a prospectus as a commitment, because often a prospectus is issued with only a month or two of the year having passed or even before the financial year starts and looking to the future, as against the circumstances where a company such as Lex, where there has been given what the company considered as a promise of a minimum dividend with five-sixths of the company's year completed.
Does Lex come into what the Financial Secretary called the "hopes and expectations" category, or does it come, as I believe, into the commitment category? Having looked at this matter carefully and looked at the precedents in Government policy spread over all these documents, I think it clear that an administrative error was made in this case. I do not expect the Government to go back on their decision. That would be asking too much tonight, but this case shows clearly that dangers of operating a detailed and complex system which has never been considered by Parliament, never collected together in a single document so that it is understood or predictable by people in business and where no reasons are given for a Treasury decision yea or nay.
There is no question of appeal even even against the Treasury decision, which, of course, has no sanction other than a moral sanction. This clearly underlines how unsatisfactory it is to operate a policy in this way and I should like to hear more details of its working from the Financial Secretary.

12.47 a.m.

Mr. J. Bruce-Gardyne: I intervene briefly, not to deny the Financial Secretary adequate time to reply, but because I have been probing a number of decisions made in the application of the Government's voluntary dividend restraint policy since Budget day.
I welcome very much the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills) has raised this case tonight, because there is no doubt that it is most difficult to defend


all the various decisions that the Treasury has taken in this instance. I passionately dislike this form of arbitrary government, which is not based on any shred of legal authority given by this House.
We are used to that from this Government, but the Government have an obligation to spell out precisely the sort of rules of thumb they are applying. I do not think that this has been done. The rules of thumb are very difficult to understand in the case of Lex Garages. I was in correspondence with the Financial Secretary about this case. He claimed to make a distinction between what he described as near contractual commitments and other obligations. I cannot see what distinction can exist between commitments which admittedly are not contractual and what he chooses to dismiss as other obligations. It seems that the case of Lex Garages is in clear conflict with other cases—where companies, for instance, which have made rights issues accompanied by dividend forecasts have been allowed to proceed with those forecasts.
I very much dislike what I have seen of the tone of the correspondence the Treasury is conducting with companies which it is attempting to arm-twist in this way. I have not seen the correspondence conducted with the Lex company but in other instances. I noticed that each of the letters from the Treasury is marked "confidential". I do not know why that is. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can tell us. There is no indication in the exchanges of letters that the policy is voluntary and has no legal authority.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Harold Lever): I ought to inform the hon. Gentleman that it is quite out of the question for me to reply tonight to unspecified and unidentified questions of which I have not had notice. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will give time for me to deal with the one instance with which I have come prepared to answer. With the best will in the world it is impossible to deal with the other questions that he has raised.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I do not intend to delay the House for more than a moment. If the Financial Secretary can assure me that in a case such as Lex this type of correspondence did not take

place, it would be a considerable relief. The impression I have from correspondence I have seen is that it has been conducted in this manner. This is very much open to objection and strengthens the case that my hon. Friend has made.

12.50 a.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Harold Lever): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills) for raising this point, because it gives me the opportunity, for about the tenth time, to emphasise that this dividend restraint policy is absolutely voluntary and that there is not in the hands of the Government any legal sanction of any kind at all.
If the hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne), whose zeal in this matter I fully respect, as he knows, will keep on misconstruing the language of officials on dividend restraint into some sort of implication that we are purporting to exercise a power that we have not in fact got, he comes up against the very firm repudiation of any such power by Government spokesmen over and over again. I repeat it tonight. This is a voluntary programme. We have no legal sanction whatever for it. I hope that there is no letter which contains any implication of any such power.
If the hon. Gentleman, instead of making generalised assertions of this kind, would submit to me any case where there is anything to be objected to in the style of language used, I can assure him that I will look at it and I will ensure that all correspondence takes place on the clear understanding that it is a voluntary restraint for which we depend upon the co-operation of business people, co-operation which, without exception, we have had.
I have also taken note of what the hon. Member for Belfast, North has said, that we perhaps ought to consider collect-ing into one document in simple form the rules which are applied.
To do justice to the one case which is before the House tonight, I shall restrict myself to answering the case which I am equipped to answer tonight, namely, that of Lex Garages. I hope that the hon. Member for South Angus will acquit me of discourtesy to himself if I do so. It has been stated, as I


would say with complete clarity, that in operating guidance to companies who ask for it in relation to their dividends a very distinct dividing line has been drawn between what are near-contractual obligations, in the way of dividend intentions related to the placing and issue of shares by companies, and the expressions of expectations or intentions, however clearly expressed, other than formal recommendations by directors.
Mere expressions fall on the wrong side of the line. There is a very simple reason for this. A good many companies tend to forecast their dividends. One of the matters which was required of the dividend restraint was that it should be effective at the same time as the incomes policy restraints to which it is related. If we had had to wait until all these forecast dividends had, as it were, run out and had allowed these forecasts to go forward without expressing a desire that companies should obey the general wish as to dividend restraint, precisely in the crucial period when incomes policy is operating there would have been dividends vastly in excess of the 3½ per cent. ceiling, not as rare exceptions, but all too frequently.
I understand and respect it when hon. Members say that they are not in favour of the incomes policy, but the Government are in favour of the policy, and, in their view, on the basis of an incomes policy, it is unthinkable that we should not call for some comparable restraint in the form of dividend restraint. I think that this has been universally recognised in the City and among business people.
I would assert that there is not one representative voice in the City which has spoken against the contention that, on the basis of the incomes policy, it is inevitable that there be some form of dividend restraint. If we are to have it, and have it effectively at the relevant period, which means starting approximately with the incomes policy, one must draw a line which excludes a host of forecasts and invite those who had made them to take into account the new circumstances of the Government's attitude to dividends.
Starting with that general principle, we recognised that to apply it universally over the whole field of expressions of intention would, in certain circumstances, be unfair. We recognised that, where

people had issued prospectuses, or the equivalent of a prospectus in the form of a letter of commitment at the time when the company placed new shares, it would be unfair not to exclude such cases from the dividend restraint. That we have done.
Which side of the line does the Lex Garage case fall? The hon. Member for Belfast, North said—and his hon. Friend the Member for South Angus made much the same point—that it falls not on the general intention side of the line, but ought to be treated in the same way as a formal recommendation, because, he said, the directors placed some shares at the time of the forecast and, perhaps, the market took account of the forecast. The market takes account of all forecasts which are made by companies, whoever sells the shares, and what hon. Members are saying is that in any case where a forecast is made, if shares are sold by anyone and the market price has been affected by the forecast, we ought to take that into account.
That is tantamount to rebutting the case which I have just made, the convincing case, that we want the dividend restraint to come into operation immediately, which is the relevant period for its purpose.

Mr. Stratton Mills: The hon. Gentleman has misunderstood my point. It is not in the general hopes and expectations category. What I have argued is that in this case, because the special announcement was made—and it was made for no other purpose, and there was no interim dividend or anything like that— it was made purely for the purpose of enabling the placing to take place, reflecting the increased dividend and it comes into the other category.

Mr. Lever: I have taken the hon. Gentleman's point. He keeps using the expression "hopes and expectations". My case is not that hopes and expectations alone fall on the wrong side of the line. It is hopes, expectations and expressions of intention, other than by formal recommendation by the board, other than by a specific written expression related to the issue of shares by the company itself.
I accept that there was here an expression of intention. The hon. Gentleman says that the intention was related to the


furtherance of the placing of shares by certain shareholders. Here I must point out that the company itself has not made that case. The first I have heard of it came from hon. Gentlemen oppos-site. Although there was a fairly comprehensive correspondence with the company, at no point did the company itself make that case. Had that case been raised, one would have looked at it.
I do not want to pronounce finally upon it. I have not seen all the facts and circumstances, and I cannot act or purport to express an opinion in relation to this company—it would not be fair to do so—upon generalities and expressions of view made by hon. Gentleman, such as, "I take it that the purpose was such-and-such", or, "I feel reasonably sure that the purpose was that". The company has made no such representations.

Mr. Stratton Mills: At the end of the statement of 27th October the company says that it is taking steps—I think the phrase is—to move out of the close company status.

Mr. Lever: It would not follow that I would have to infer that the company had placed shares on the basis of that statement. I would have to look at the whole of the circumstances. What I emphasise is that in making the application the company did not raise this point.
While it would be wrong of me to pronounce finally on this point on the basis of the comment from hon. Members opposite, it is right that I should say— and I am not prejudging any other facts that might be submitted to me—that even on the facts as they have submitted them the placing by individual shareholders, whoever they may be, and for whatever purpose, cannot necessarily come within the scope of a firm recommendation or a near-contractual obligation which relates to the issue of a company's own shares, because, in general, where a director places shares on the basis of a statement of intention as opposed to a formal recommendation it is in principle no different from any other shareholder placing his shares through the market or privately on the basis of a forecast that has been made by directors.
It is difficult for me to see why the hon. Member supposes that a director

should be in any better position, or that anybody who bought from a director should be in any better a position than anybody who bought from any other shareholder. The person who is placed in a different and more favourable position is the person who has contracted with the company and the company has issued shares. Thereby anything it said in relation to that issue we believe takes on a near-contractual, near-prospectus type validity. We think that it would be wrong not to allow that near-prospectus type commitment to be honoured.
I repeat that I do not pronounce finally on this case until I have had the whole facts submitted by the company. But on the basis of the facts supplied by the hon. Gentleman I must emphasise that all he has disclosed is the statement of intention to pay a dividend by the directors, and that some shareholders—possibly directors of the company, but not the company itself—have on the basis of that forecast been able to market their shares. I can see no difference in principle between directors doing this for whatever purposes and any other shareholder doing it. I can see a vital difference between a company which issues shares where every statement it makes in connection with the issue of capital is of a prospectus-like character. It would be wrong not to allow it to honour those prospectus-like assurances.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Surely the hon. Gentleman would agree that there must be some difference between placing by ordinary shareholders and placing by controlling shareholders, as this was, who were making forecasts at the same time.

Mr. Lever: On the basis of what has been said in the House, I cannot make any such difference in principle.
All these decisions are taken with the greatest care. Every effort is made to be helpful. We make no effort to purport to possess powers which we do not possess. If there is any difficulty, it is looked at by one official, who does all these cases, so that there is consistency in the policy. If there is any further difficulty, Ministers are consulted. I assure the House that nothing in this policy is motivated by anti-business sentiment or anything of that kind, still less is it operated in that spirit.
I am glad publicly to recognise the co-operation which we have received from all the responsible City authorities and the company affected. I can see that it is not easy always to accept the point at which the dividing line is drawn. But for the reasons which I have given, I believe that the line has been drawn in a sensible way and in the only way which would make the policy work in the relevant time. Yet, on the other hand, we have made exceptions when the morality of the matter compelled those concessions to be made.
I hope that, on reflection, the hon. Gentlemen will realise that the case has been looked at with complete sympathy and understanding for the difficulties of the directors. The dividing line has been sensibly drawn and must be maintained.

The debate having been concluded, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Mr. SPEAKER suspended the sitting of the House at five minutes past One o'clock till Ten o'clock this day, pursuant to Order.